ry- :      m 


*^:^^%  ^^^ 


:^ 


*W,". 


^ 

^ 

C3 

a. 

1         .§• 

CC 

1      /? 

Q. 

; 

^ 

JO 

^■^ 

IE 

1                ^               »-3 

CL 

'                ^ 

:     *S^      }z; 

"^ 

' 

o 

5 

i    ^     g 

a; 

c 

1      ^         o 

bj) 

CN               i 

1  S    i 

3 

i 

izi 

E 

.«0 

1              <*>                M 

t  j 

"sI 

1     ^      Pi 

CO 

"^ 

s 

^ 

Ot 

1 

% 

1 

c 

s 

^ 

0) 

1 

V) 

CL 

^  1 

I^^Hk^ 


AN 

APOLOGY 


FOR    THE 


Rite  of  Infant  Baptifm, 

AND    FOR   THE 

USUAL  MODES  OF  BAPTIZING. 


IN    WHICH, 

An  attempt  is  made  to  ftate  fairly  and  clearly   the 

Arguments  in  proof  of  thefe  doctrines ;    and  al- 

fo  to  refute  the  objedions  and  reafonings 

alleged    againft    them,    by   the   Rev, 

Daniel    Merrill,   and   by    the 

Baptifts    in   general. 


By   J  O  H  N  '"R  E  E  D,  d.  d. 

Paftor  of  a  Church  and  Congregation  in  Bridgewater. 


Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jc- 
fus  Chrift.    For  the  promife  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.' 

-  Acts  ad — 38,  sg. 

Then  will  I  fprinkle  .dean  water  upon  you  ;  and  ye  fliall  be 
clean.  Ezek.  36th — 25. 

So  fhall  he  fprinkle  many  nations.  Isaiah  ^ad — 15. 


PROVIDENCE: 
PRINTED  BY  HEATON  &WILLIAMS. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

SOME  pe^fon^  acquainted  with  my  defign^ 
announced  in  a  puhlick  Ncws-Papfr.  in  the  he- 
ginning  of  the  lajl  fummer^  my  intention  to  pub- 
lipi  a  Treatife  on  the  Siihje^s  and  Modes  of 
Baptifm.  The  work  was  then  commenced^  but 
its  completion  and  publication  have  been  greatly 
retarded  by  the  prevalence  of  Sicknefs  and  Mor- 
tali-y*  within  the  limits  cf  the  Parifh  with 
which  I  am  conncBed. 


Dtjlri^  of  MaJfachufetfSi  to  wit : 

BE  it  remembered,  that  on  the  Twenty-flxth  day  of  Marck 
in  the  thirtieth  Year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  John  Reed,  of  the  faid  Diftiicfb,  hath  de- 
pofited  in  this  Office  rhe  Title  of  a  Book  the  Right  whereof  he 
claims  as  Author  in  the  words  following,  to  wit  ;  "  An  Apol- 
*'  ogj*  for  the  Rite  of  Infant  Baptifm.  and  for  the  ufual  modes 
"  ox  Baptifmg — in  which  an  attem.pt  is  made  to  ftate  fairly 
"  and  clearly  the  arguments  in  proof  oi  thefe  doArincs  ;  and 
"  alfo  to  refute  the  objedions  and  reafonlngs  alleged  againft 
"  them  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Merrill  and  by  the  Baptlfts  in  gen- 
*'  eral.  By  John  Reed,  D.  D.  Paftor  of  a  Church  and  Con- 
"  gregatioB  in  Eridgcwater  " 

In  conformity  to  the  A&.  of  the  Congrefs  «f  the  United 
States,  entitled  "  An  AS.  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning, 
"  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the 
"  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  luch  copies,  during  the  time* 
"  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  alfo  to  an  AA  entitled,  "  An  Av5t 
"  fupplementary  to  an  A6t,  entitled  an  A&.  for  the  encourage- 
"  nient  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts 
"  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Propriettrs  of  furh  copies 
*'  during  th«  tiines  therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  ben- 
"  eSts  thereof  to  the  arts  of  defigning,  engraving  and  etching 
'*  hiiiorical  and  other  prints." 

N.  GOOBALE,  Clerk  of  the  Diftri<5l  of  Maffach^ifetts. 
A  true  copy  of  Record. 

Attefl,       N.  GGODALE,  Clerk. 


INTRODUCTION. 


IN  compl'Lince  \\'iib  the  r-fqueft  of  many 
refpt'Rable  Friends  and  Acquaintance, 
I  now  prcfent  the  Publick  with  an  Apol  gy 
for  the  Ritf  of  ir.fant  Bapiifm,  and  for  the 
itfnal  7}i)des  of  baprizing.  My  iniention  is 
to  fhow,  that  thefc  DoBrines.  v^hich  have 
been  fo  drenuoufly  oopofed.  or  wholly  neg- 
le61ed  by  fome,  are  of  great  importance,  and 
cleurly  authori fed  in  the  f.cred  fcriptures. 

Although  the  undri  ftar. dint;  ought  alsvays 
to  control  and  regulate  the  paffijns,  yet  in 
common  experience,  we  often  fee  the  re- 
vcrfe.  We  fee  reafon  dethroned  aiid  en- 
(lavcd.  The  paffions  predominate  and  draw 
afide  rational  creatures  into  fuch  opinions 
and  practices  as  arc  unreafonable  and  im- 
moral. 

Many  perfons,  who  profefs  a  regard  for 
moral  obligation,  and  the  grea-.  duti-es  of 
morality,  are  ready  to  imagine  that  they 
may  with  the  utmoft  fafety  and  propriety, 
treat  with  indifference  or  contempt,  thofe 
iuRitutions  of  Heaven,  which  are  of  a  pcH- 
tive  and  facramental  nature. 

We  leadily  admit  that  a  competent  de- 
gree of  evidence  is  requifi^e,  in  oider  to 
convince  us  rationally,  that  an  external 
Rite    oi   Sacram.nt   is   of  divine   appoint- 


IT  INTRODUCTION. 

ment;  but  voluntary  ignorance  or  unbe- 
lief, through  inattention,  prejudice,  pride, 
or  any  other  criminal  defect  or  caufe,  will 
never  excufe  us  from  guilt. 

A  fincere  and  prevailing  difpofition  to 
know  the  will  of  God,  and  to  obey  his  re- 
quirements, whether  of  a  pofitive  or  moral 
nature,  is  eflential  to  true  holinefs.  That 
perfon,  therefore,  who  cbnfiders  and  treats 
pofitive  inditutions,  in  a  contemptuous  or 
negligent  manner,  commits  a  crime  of  the 
moft  heinous  and  daring  nature.  He  im- 
pioufly  arraigns  the  Wifdom,  Goodnefs, 
and  Authority,  of  Almighty  God. 

"  Sacraments  are  pofitive  Rites,  and  in 
*'  themfelves  different  from  moral  virtues; 
"  but  a  difpofition  to  obey  God  and  Chrift, 
"  is  a  moral  virtue,  and  there  can  be  no  mo- 
''  rality  without  it.  To  obey  the  divine 
"  Commands,  is  a^  moral  excellency,  al- 
"  though  that  obedience  may  confift  in  a 
'•  conformity  to  pofitive  Rites." 

Abraham  was  commanded  to  facrifice 
his  Son.  This  was  an  unnatural  and  pofi- 
tive order;  but  his  obedience  to  that  hard 
command,  was  a  moral  virtue  of  a  mod  ex- 
alted and  excellent  nature.  The  Ifraelites 
were  commanded  to  fprinkle  the  blood  of 
the  pafchal  Lamb,  upon  the  polls  of  their 
doors.  This  was  a  pofitive  order,  and  not 
in  itfelf  neceffary  to  their  prefervation  ;  but 
it  was  made  the  indifpeafable  condition  of 


INTRODUCTION.  .   V 

being  fpared.  They  who  neg]c61ed  to  com- 
ply, were  expofed  to  the  fatal  and  inevita- 
ble ftroke  of  the  deflroying  Angel. 

Inftitutes  of  a  pofiiive  nature  are  evi- 
dently important;  and  to  pbferve  them,  is 
our  incumbent  duty.  The  ChriPiian  Bap- 
tifm  is  an  ordinance  of  great  importance  ; 
inftituted  by  Chrift  himfelf,  and  confliiuted 
the  difcriminating  Token  of  regalar  admif- 
fion  into  his  vifiblc  Kingdom. 

Chriftians  of  every  denomination,  will 
allow  that  our  Saviour  exprefjily  command- 
ed his  Apoftlcs  to  baptize  ;  and  that  bap- 
tifm  was  adminiftered  by  them,  and  by  their 
fucccfiors,  in  the  times  of  primitive  Chrif- 
tianiry. 

The  Quakers  are  the  only  fe-61  who  pre- 
tend that  the  ordinances  of  Water  Baptifm 
and  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  ought  to  be  dif- 
conlinued.  Their  principles  and  pra6li:e 
in  thefe  refpefcls  are  fingular  and  iirang'^, 
but  not  unaccountable ;  for  they  hold  tlidt 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  of  higher  authority  than 
his  Word,  and  a  fuperior  rule  of  faiih  and 
pfa6lice. 

I  have  not,  however,  in  the  followi;  g 
Apology,  undertaken  to  confute  the  Qaa- 
ker  fyftem.  My  fole  objc;6l  has  been,  lo 
vindicate  the  doclrine  o{  infanc  haptijm^d.vA 
the  ufaal  modes  of  baptizing,  by  endeavouririg 
to  ftate  in  a  fair  and  confpicu  us  manner, 
the  arguments  in  favour  of  thefe  praBices  • 
A  2 


Vt  iNtRODUCTION. 

and  by  attempting  to  anfwer  and  confute 
the  obje6lions  and  reafonings  alleged  a- 
gainft  them,  by  Mr.  Merrill,  and  the  prin- 
cipal Baptift  writers. 

The  Work  is  divided  into  four  principal 
parts. 

The  id  Part  has  reference  to  the  fubjeds 
of  Baptifm. 

The  2d  Part  has  reference  to  the  Modes 
of  Baptizing. 

The  3d  Part  is  a  brief  account  of  the  evi- 
dence refuhing  from  hiftory,  and  efpecially 
in  proof  of  the  right,  of  the  infant  children 
of  believing  parents,  to  baptifm. 

The  4th  Part  is  anx^ppendix,  confifting  of 
familiar  queftions  and  anfwers,  adapted  to 
perfons  of  different  prejudices  and  capaci- 
ties, and  fuited  to  the  prefent  (late  and  cir- 
cumftances  of  the  controverfy. 

In  executing  this  plan,  I  have  exprefTed 
my  thbughts  with  refped  to  three  of  the 
former  parts,  in  a  feries  of  letters  addreffed 
to  the  Rev.  Danmel  Merrill,  now  the 
Pallor  of  a  Bapiift  Church  in  Sedgwick. 

I  have  preferred  the  epidolary  method  of 
writing,  fuppofing  it  would  be  the  molt  in- 
tcrelting  and  intelligible.  1  have  addreffed 
thefe  letters  to  Mr.  Merrill,  becaufe  that 
gentleman,  having  been  a  Congregational 
Miniiter  for  fcveral  >ears,  has  of  late  alter- 
ed his  principles  and  praclice,  and  has  pub- 
lilhed  a  number  of  lermons.  Sec.  againil  the 


INTRODUCTION.  VII 

lawfulnefs  and  validity  of  infant  baptifm, 
and  in  favour  of  imraerfion,  as  being  the 
only  lawful  and  valid  mode  of  baptizing; 
which  publications  are  circulating  in  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  country,  and  particularly 
in  this  vicinity,  and  therefore  merit  a  par- 
ticular reply.  I  have  not,  however,  had 
an  exclufive  refpeQ  to  this  Author.  It  has 
been  my  conftant  aim  to  refute  the  objec- 
tions of  the  Baptifts  in  general  ;  and  to 
manage  the  arguments  in  fuch  a  manner,  as 
would  effectuate  the  moft  extenfive  and 
laPiing  utility  ;  and  prove  equally  inftruc- 
tive  and  beneficial,  even  to  thofe  who  have 
not  feen  Mr.  Merrill's  Difcourfes. 

The  intelligent  and  well  informed  reader 
will  perhaps  feel  difgufted  with  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  repetition,  prolixity,  and  old 
arguments.  My  only  excufe  is  this,  that  I 
have  uniformly  endeavoured  to  avoid  ob- 
fcuritv,  and  to  write  as  intelligibly  as  was 
poffible — in  fuch  a  manner,  as  to  be  under- 
ftood,  even  by  the  weak  and  ignorant.  I 
have  accordingly  ftudied  perfpicuity,  more 
than  comprebenfive  brevity,  and  plainncfs 
of  fpeech,  more  than  elegance  ofdi8ion. 

The  coiiclurivenefs  of  various  arguments 
adduced  in  o.der  to  prove  any  particular 
docltine,  is  ofien  very  evident,  when  we 
properly  confider  their  confiftency,  con- 
nection, and  uni;ed  ftrength.  Truth  dreads 
noihing  [o  much  as  the  ignorance,  inatlcn- 


VIII  IMTRODUCTION. 

lion,  and  bigotry  of  mankind.  It  folicits 
enquiry,  and  a  careful  unprejudiced  invef- 
tigation.  Let  me  then  invite  the  reader  to 
perufe  the  following  Apology  with  care,wiih 
candour  and  with  impartiality.  I  afk  this 
as  a  duty,  which  you  owe  io your/elf,  and  to 
that  Being  to  whom,  both  the  Reader  and 
the  Author^  are  equally  accountable. 

And  now,  my  Friend,  mdij  yoit  and  /  be 
willing  to  adopt,  individually,  the  Poet's 
Prayer,  and  fay  fincerely; 

*'  Father  of  all  !    whofe   cares  extend 
"  To  earth's  remoteft  fhore; 

**  If  I  am  right,  thy  grace  impart, 
'*  Still  in  the  right  to  flay  ; 

"  If  I  am  wrong,  O  teach  my  heart 
"  To  find  thai  better  way." 


AN       > 

A    P    O    L    Q-G   Y 


FOR. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Y 


LETTER 

SIR, 


OUR  Sermons  on  Baptifm,  having  been 
put  into  my  hands,  I  have  endeavoured  to 
perufe  them  with  attention  and  impartiali- 
ty;  but  have  found  no  new  argument,  ei- 
ther againft  the  praftice  oF  baptizing  the 
infants  of  profefled  Believers,  or  in  favour 
of  immerfion,  as  being  the  only  valid  Mode 
of  Baptizing.  The  fubjeQ  is,  perhaps,  on 
both  fides  the  queftion,  nearly  or  quite  ex- 
haufted.  It  may,  however,  in  (ome  inftan- 
ce.s,  be  poffible  to  (late  the  old  arguments 
more  intelligibly,  and  illuftrate  them  more 
clearly. 

Your  cafe,  as  it  appears  from  common 
report,  and  from  what  you  have  publiOied, 
is,  in  fome  refpefts,  fomewhat  fingular  ; 
and  the  fingalarity  has  excited  the  curiofity 


10  AN    APOLOGY    ?0X 

of  individuals,  and  has  occafioned  a  coifid- 
erable  demand  for  your  publications. 

You  are,  Sir,  an  entire  Granger  to  me. 
I  have  no  knowledge  of  your  perfon,  nor 
of  your  charaBer.  but  from  your  Vvritings. 
You  certaiiily  feem  ferious  and  fincere  in 
what  you  have  pub'ifhed  to  the  world.  I 
have  no  reafon  nor  inclinafion  to  quedion 
your  fincerirv  ;  but  we  ought  to  remember, 
that  Mankind  are  liable  to  be  fincerely 
wrong,  as  well  as  fincerely  right.  I  be- 
lieve. Sir,  that  your  prefent  feniiments  are, 
in  fome  refpe6is,  erroneous,  with  regard  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  Chriftian  Bapiifm  ; 
and,  if  if  were  in  my  power,  I  w^ould.  in  the 
Spirit  of  Mteknefs,  convince  and  reclaim 
you  ;  but  an  event  of  this  kind,  is  proba- 
bly not  to  be  expe8ed  from  any  quarter. 
Experience  and  obfervation  have  taught 
me,  that  when  perfons  become  profelyies 
to  any  religious  fed,  they  feldom  return. 
This,  1  believe,  is  generally  true,  not  only 
with  regard  to  the  Baptifts.  but  alfo  with 
regard  to  Se61aries  of  every  denomination. 
If  the  following  letters  addreffed  to  you, 
fhould  not  produce  the  defired  efirc6l  on 
your  mind,  they  may  have  a  tendency  to 
prevent  others  from  falling  into  the  fame 
fuppofed  error. 

Having  mentioned  your  Text,  you  pro- 
ceed to  ftate  ''  feveral  propofitions  and 
''  plain   truths,   and  to  quote  various  paffa- 


INFANT    BAPTlSJi.  11 

«  ges  of  Scripture,  which  have  fome  refer- 
"  ence  to  Baptifm  ;"  but,  Sir,  all  this  proves 
nothing,  pro  or  contra.  Thefe  propofitions 
might  have  been  Rated  and  paffages  quoted, 
with  equal  propriety,  by  a  writer  on  the  op- 
pofite  fide.  The  queilion  between  us  (lill 
remains  undecided.  Indeed  it  is  not  fo 
much  as  Rated,  and  yet  you  conclude  your 
firft  fermon  by  faying,  "  We  fee  that  every 
"  thing  looks  as  though  immerfion  saight  be 
"  the  mode,  and  as  for  fprinkling,  there  is, 
*'  to  fay  the  leaft,  nothing  that  looks  like  it." 

An  aflertion  of  this  nature  ought  to  have 
been  fubftantially  and  clearly  proved,  but 
you  have  exhibited  no  argument  or  proof, 
from  which  this  pretended  inference  can 
fairly  be  drawn. 

The  quedion  between  us,  is  not,  which 
of  thefe  two  modes,  whether  fprinkling,  or 
immerfion,  be  the  only  right  mode  of  bap- 
tizing. We  admit  that  immerfion  is  Bap- 
tifm, and  we  believe  that  Sprinkling  is  alfo 
Bapiifm ;  but  you  pretend  that  immerfion 
is  the  only  valid  mode,  and  ''  that  fprink- 
ling does  not  even  look  like  Baptifm."  In 
this,  Sir,  we  diflPer  in  opinion,  and  the  dif- 
ference ought  to  have  been  candidly  and 
plainly  reprefented. 

Your  criticifm  on  the  Greek  word  baptizo^ 
&c.  and  other  arguments  in  fupport  of  im- 
merfion, as  being  the  only  acceptable  mode, 
I  will  attend  to  hereafter,  if  God  peimii  -, 


12  AN   APOLOGY   FOR 

but  propofe,  in  the  firft  place,  to  confider 
the  Subjeds  of  Baptifm,  as  this  method  is 
moil  agreeable  to  my  manner  of  thinking 
and  writing. 

I  am,  Sec. 


LETTER     II. 

SIR, 

HE  paffage  of  facred  Scripture,  you 
have  chofen  for  your  Text,  you  very  juft- 
ly  ftyle  the  Commiflion  which  our  Saviour 
gave  to  his  Apoftles.  This  commifTion  was 
evidently  given  them  to  be  the  Warrant 
and  rule  of  their  official  duty  and  conduct. 
In  order  to  underftand  fully  and  correBly 
any  ancient  Rule  briefly  exprefled,  it  is  of 
great  importance,  and  often  neceffary,  to 
be  acquainted  with  the  hiftory  of  the  nation 
and  times,  in  which,  and  for  which,  the 
rule  was  primarily  given.  Many  things, 
concerning  which  the  people  were  then 
well  informed,  and  to  which  they  were 
habitually  accuftomed,  are  frequently  taken 
for  granted  and  not  explicitly  meniioned 
and  enjoined  in  the  Rule. 

The  Commiflion,  which  our  Saviour  gave 
his  Apoftles,  is  extremely  concife  and  com- 
prehenfive.     Their  official  duties  are  com- 


iNFANT     BAPTISM.  ^  I3 

prized  in  very  few  words.  Some  have 
doubted,  whether  the  command  to  teach 
(or  make  difciples  of)  all  nahcns,  (as  the  o- 
riginal  word  fignifiesj  extended  to  infants, 
or  have  fuppofed  that  it  had  reference  on- 
ly to  adult  perfons. 

In  order  to  remove  doubts  and  miflakes 
of  any  kind,  relative  to  this  queftion,  it 
would  be  proper  for  us  to  inform  ourfelves 
as  to  the  common  cuftom  of  thofe  times, 
and  if  poffible,  afcertain  what  v/as  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Jews  with  refpeQ  to  Baptifm,  in 
our  Saviour's  day;  and  alfo  how  the  Apof- 
tles  and  primitive  Minifters  of  the  Gofpel 
underftood  and  executed  their  commiffion. 

If  the  Saviour,  inilead  of  directing  his 
Apoftles  to  baptize,  had  direQed  them  to 
make  Difciples  of  all  Nations,  circuincifing 
them  &c.  I  prefume  every  one  would  fup- 
pofe  that  he  meant  to  enjoin  infant  circum- 
cifion.  The  cafes  are  fimilar ;  for  infant 
Baptifm  was  probably  as  common  among  the 
Gentile  Profelytes,  as  infant  circumcifion. 

Dr.  Wall,  who  pubiiTned  in  London  the 
third  edition  of  his  hiflory  of  infant  Baptifm,' 
in  1720,  has  always  been  efteemed  by  the 
belt  judges,  a  very  learned,.judicious,  and 
impartial  hillorian  ;  and  in  his  introduction, 
fird  volume,  he  has  abundantly  proved 
horn  good  authorities,  that,  v.  henever  the 
Gentiles  became  Profelytes  to  the  Jewifii 
Religion,  their  infant  children  were  bapti- 
B 


14  AK    APOLOGY    FOR 

zed.  "  This,"  he  fays,  "  was  their  conflant 
*•  pra8ice  from  the  time  of  Mofes  until  our 
"  Saviour's  time,  and  from  that  period  to 
•'  the  prefent  day."  We  need  not  at  pref. 
ent  fhow,  on  what  fcripture  this  pra6lice 
v;as  founded.  It  is  fufficient  for  our  pur- 
pofe,  that  the  pra6lice  did  obtain,  and  that 
it  was  never  condemned,  or  difapproved  by 
Chrift. 

We  are  fometimes  afked,  Is  there  any 
command  to  baptize  infants  ?  The  quef- 
tion,  in  my  apprehenfion,  is  not  properly 
put  :  it  ought  to  be  enquired,  is  there  any 
command  not  to  baptize  infants  ?  For  an 
eftablidied  and  approved  pra8ice.  is  equiv- 
alent to  a  command,  until  that  pra61ice  be 
prohibited. 

It  was  expe6led  that,  when  the  MefTiah 
fhould  come,  and  when  the  Elias  his  fore- 
runner fhould  appear,  thefe  great  Proph- 
ets would  baptize,  not  only  Gentile  Prof- 
elytes,  but  Jews.  According])',  when  John 
was  adminiilering  the  ordinance  of  Baptifm 
in  the  land  of  Judea,  "  The  ]t\isfcnt  PrieJIs 
and  Levitts  from  Jeriifalcm^  to  ajk  hivi^  Who 
art  thou  ?  And  when  he  confejfed  I  am  not  the 
Chrijl ;  what  then,  art  thou  Elias  ?  he  anjiver- 
cd  no.''  They  had  reference  to  the  very 
identical  Elias,  or  Elijah,  who  had  been 
iranflated  :  he  therefore  anfwered  no.  '•  Why 
then,  /aid  they^  haptizejl  thou  P"  They  did 
not  exped  that  their  own  Nation  would  be 


INTAMT     BAPTISM.  I5 

baptized  until  the  Elias  or  MefTirih  came. 
But  as  we  have  obferved,  they  were  in  the 
conflrint  habit  of  baptizing  Gentile  Profe- 
lytes,  and  there  was  no  objeBioii  to  this 
praBice. 

"Whenever  Gentiles  were  pro^elyied  (o 
*'  the  belief  of  the  }ewifh  Religion,  they 
*'  were  initiated  by  circumci{i()n,  the  offor- 
''  ing  of  racrificcs,  and  bapti'm.  They  wer::^ 
"  all  baptized,  males  and  females,  adults 
"  and  infants. ' 

The  rites  of  circumcifion  and  facriGccs 
are  annulled  ;  but  Baprifm  is  conii.>ued, 
being  lefs  grievous  and  expenfive,  and 
fuitable  to  both  fexes,  and  more  congenial 
to  the  milder  difpenfadon  of  the  go'pel. 

The  Ifraeiiies,  men,  women  and  chil^ 
dren,  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofcs^  in  the 
cloud  and  in  thefea.  The  Gentile  pro felytes 
^ere  alfo  baptized,  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, in  the  ordinary  motle  ;  and  as  the 
ordinance  of  Baptifm  has  not  been  laid  a- 
fide,  but  continued,  and  without  mention 
of  any  alteration  as  to  the  fubjt^ls,  it  is 
therefore  of  courfe  dill  to  be  adminiftercd 
to  Believers  and  to  their  Children  :  That 
is,  to  all  fuch  as  fhall  be  profelyted  to  the 
Chriftian  Religion,  whether  Jews  or  Gen> 
tiles,  together  wiih  their  infant  Children. 

A  belief  in  revelation  always  was,  and 
ftill  is  required,  in  order  to  the  Baptifm 
of  Adults ;  but  it  is  no  naore  necedary  in  or- 


l6  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

der  to  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  under  the 
Gofpel  of  Chrift,  than  it  was  under  the 
-Law  of  Mofes. 

I  am  ready  to  acknowledge,  that,  if  a  Bap- 
tift  Miniiler  were  to  be  fent  forth  by  a 
Miffionary  Society  of  the  Baptifi  Denomi- 
nation, to  preach  and  adminifter  the  ordi- 
nances of  (he  Gofpel  in  a  remote  country, 
it  would  be  unneceffary  to  forbid  him  to^ 
baptize  the  Infants  of  Believers.  The  pro- 
hibition v/ould  be  implied,  and  a  thing  of- 
courfe. 

So  on  the  other  hand,  if  a  Congregational 
Minifler  were  to  be  fent  forth  by  the  Con- 
gregational Miirionary  Society,  now  eftab- 
liflied  in  the  State  of  Miffachufetfs,  to 
preach  the  Gofpel  and  adminifter  its  ordi- 
nances in  aur  frontier  fetflcments,  it  would 
be  equally  unnecefTary  to  enjoin  the  B^ap- 
tifm  of  Infants;  for  this  w^ould  be  implied 
in  the  Commifiion,  and  cxpeQed  as  a  thing 
of  courfe. 

The  Apoftles  previoufly  to  our  Saviour's 
crucifixion,  appear  to  have  baptized  per- 
fons  without  any  particular  orders  or  direc- 
tions. Their  praB-ice,  in  this  refpeft,  was 
undoubtedly  founded  on  the  approved  ex- 
ample of  John  and  cuftom  of  thofe  times. 
And  with  equal  propriety,  and  by  the  fame 
authority,  when  their  commiffion  was  en- 
larged, they  might  baptize  the  Infants  of 
Eelieversc,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I7 

Our  Saviour,  during  his  publick  minif- 
tration,  repeatedly  fent  forth  his  Difciples 
to  preach  the  GoTpel  to  the  Jews.  In 
thefe  inftances,  he  reftriQed  ihem  to  the 
"  lofl  Jheep  of  the  hovfe  of  If  rati  ^  and  exprefly 
^'forbid  their  going  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles^ 
"  or  cities  of  the  Samaritans,"  Their  in- 
ftru61ions  and  orders  were  very  particular 
and  explicit  in  many  refpeRs;  but  there 
v/as  not  one  word  faid  to  them  about  Bap- 
tifm,  and  yet  they  undoubtedly  did  bap'ize 
vail  numbers.  We  are  told,  that  ''  they 
"  made  and  baptized  more  Difciples  than  John.'' 
Their  pra6lice,  in  this  refpetl,  was  autho- 
rized by  eftablifhed  precedents,  and  ap- 
proved cuftom  of  the  country. 

After  the  refurreQion  of  Chri(i,  the  wall 
of  feparation  and  diftinfticn  between  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  was  removed  and  the  ccm- 
miflion  of  the  Apoftles  accordingly  enlar- 
ged. They  were  now  directed  to  make 
Dfciples  of  all  Nations',  baptizing  thcm^  ScQ. 
And  as  it  had  ever  been  the  culiom  to  in- 
clude children  with  their  parents  in  all 
covenant  tranfa6tions,  and  as  the  'children 
of  believing  profelytes  had  always  been 
baptized,  the  pradice  of  baptizing  infants 
and  young  children  of  Believers,  would  be 
continued  as  a  thing  of  courfe,  unlefs  pro- 
hibited ;  and  certainly  there  is  no  fuch  pro- 
hibition. 

B2 


l8  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

Their  commiffion  was  worded  in  the  moffi 
general  terms.  It  comprehended  all  na- 
tions— Believers  and  their  children  of  every 
nation,  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

I  do  not,  Sir,  confider  the  cuftom  of 
baptizing  the  Gentile  profelytes,  as  being 
the  main  argument  in  favour  of  infant  Bap- 
tifm,  under  the  Gofpel  difpenfation.  But 
as  this  ancient  pra6tice  has  been  well  au- 
thenticated by  Dr.  Wall  and  other  hiftori- 
ans,  it  certainly  merits  our  impartial  con- 
fideration. 

Dr.  Prideaux,  in  his  connexion  of  the 
hiftory  of  the  old  and  new  Teftament, 
part  2d,  book  5,  page  436,  obferves,  "  That 
*'  the  Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  were  very 
«•  fedulous  to  profelyte  the  Gentiles  to  their 
"  religion  ;  and  when  thus  profelyted,  they 
«'  were  initiated  by  Baptifm,  Sacrifice  and 
«•  Circumcifion  ;  and  then  admitted  to  all 
'•  the  rites  and  privileges  of  the  natural 
««  Jews." 

The  ordinance  of  Baptifm,  it  feems,  had 
been  omitted  among  the  Jews,  from  the 
days  of  Mofes  till  the  time  of  Chrift,  but 
was  then  re-eftabliflied  and  adminiftered  to 
them,  as  well  as  to  the  Gentiles.  To  this 
the  Saviour  undoubtedly  alluded,  when  he 
faid  to  Nicodemus,  "  Excepl  a  man  (any  one) 
''  he  born  cf  Water  and  the  Spirit^  he  cannot 
"  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,''    The  Jew- 


\ 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I9 

ifh  Ruler,  inftead  of  coming  fecretly  hy 
nighty  muft  come  by  day,  and  be  baptized. 
It  is  certain  that  no  perfon  can  belong 
to  the  invifible  Kingdom  of  God.  unlefs  born 
of  the  Spirit^  that  is,  renewed  hy  th^  Bcly  Ghoft; 
and  it  is  equally  certain  that  no  Of-e  can 
regularly  belong  to  the  vifible  Kingdom  of 
God,  unlefs  horn  of  Wafer,  that  is,  biprized. 
And  yet  our  Saviour  faid,  ••  Suffer  Utile  chil- 
''  dren  to  covie  unto  me,  and  forbid  thcvi  not^ 
^*  for  of  fitch  IS  the  Kingdom  cf  God.''  Now, 
\{  his  Kiiigdom,  whether  vifible  or  invifible, 
does  confift  of  little  children^  of  infants,  they 
certainly  have  a  right  to  the  external  fign 
and  token  of  member fliip,  which  is  Baptifm, 
the  wafliing  of  regeneration, 

I  am^  Sir,  Sec, 


H 


LETTER     III, 
SIR, 


AVING5  in  live  preceding  Letter,  at- 
tempted to  elucidate  the  queftion  under 
confidera'ion.  by  pointing  out  the  way  and 
method  in  which  the  Gentile  profelytes 
were  publicly  initiated  ifito  the  jewifh  re- 
ligion and  covenant.  I  am  now  prepared 
to  confider  your  objeftions  and  arguments 
againft  the  practice  of  infant   Baptifm.      I 


20  AN    APOLOGY    TO* 

hope,  Sir,  you  will  not  be  offended,  if  I 
fhculd  difcover  and  corre61  fome  miftakes 
and  (ophiftry,  in  your  mode  of  reafoning 
and  manner  of  treating  the  fubje8;. 

We  are  agreed  that  the  word  mathetenfatey 
which  is  tranflated  teach^  means  (difcipk)  all 
nations.  The  voluntary  confeni  of  adult 
perfons  is  neceffary,  in  order  to  their  be- 
coming the  Difciples  of  Chrifl.  A  profef- 
fion  of  faith  is  required  of  them  in  order  to 
Baptifm.  It  is  therefore  requifite,  that  they 
fhould  be  previoufly  taught  and  inftrufted. 

Faith  and  repentance  were  equally  ne- 
ceffary under  the  Law  of  Mofes,  in  order 
to  the  circumcjfion  of  adult  Jews,  and  m 
order  to  the  circumcifion  and  Baptifm  of 
the  adult  Gentiles,  but  not  required  of  their 
infant  children. 

In  your  fixth  Difcourfe,  you  make  this 
fuppofirion,  "  Suppofe  I,  inftrumentally, 
^' difciple  the  Father  of  a  Chridiefs  Family, 
"  do  I,  as  a  neceffary  confequence,  make 
••  Chrinians  of  all  his  houfe  ?  Do  I  make 
"  vifible  difciples  of  all  his  family  ?  his 
"  wife,  his  fervants,  his  children  ?" 

I,  Sir,  will  venture  to  anfwer  thefe  qaef. 
tions  in  the  negative,  and  am  not  a  little 
furprized  to  find,  that  you  (hould  have  been 
for  fo  long  a  time  in  favour  of  the  affirma- 
tive  fide. 

Who,  excepting  yourfelf,  in  this  enlight- 
ened country,  ever  (uppofed,  that  the  faith 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  21 

of  the  hufb^nd  entitled  his  wife,  or  that  the 
faith  of  the  father  entitled  his  adult  chil- 
dren and  fervants,  to  Baptifm  ?  It  is  cer- 
tainly nnnecefTary  to  confute  opinions 
\vhich  every  body  among  us.  at  prefent^ 
difavows. 

You  proceed,  fourthly,  to  (late  a  nu-n- 
ber  of  frightful  confequences  ''asfollov/- 
''  ing  upon  fuppofition  the  fabje8s  of  Bap- 
"  tifm  are  to  be  determined  from  the  fub- 
*•  je8s  of  circumcifion.  That  every  man 
'•  who  is  converted  tx)  the  Chriftian  religion 
*'  muft  be  baptized,  and  all  his  houfehold, 
"  although  he  may  have  three  hundred  and 
'*  feventeen  foldiers,  born  in  his  own  houfe^ 
"  together  with  their  wives  and  children, 
"  and  all  other  fervants.  A  thoufand  infi- 
^*  dels  are  to  be  baptized,  becaufe  their 
*'  mafter  is  chrii'iianized.  All  thefe  are  to 
"  be  conlidered  and  treated  as  Church 
'•  Members,  and  then  alTc,  could  fuch  a 
^'  communion  be  called  the  communion  of 
"  faints  ? — One  great  and  good  m.an,  with 
"  hundreds  of  unconverted  fervants." 

I  very  much  wonder,  Sir,  that  your  fruit- 
ful imagination  did  not  add  to  this  formida- 
ble lift,  one  more  "  great  and  good  man." 
with  his  feven  hundred  wives  and  three 
hundred  concubines,  and  numerous  retinue 
of  troops  and  attendants. 

The  cafe  you  have  ftated  is  not  fup- 
pofable    under    the    difpenfation    of    the 


2  2  AN    APOLOGY    r  OR 

Gofpel.  The  covenant  of  grace  and 
church  of  Chrift  have  been  fubftaniial- 
ly  the  fame  in  all  ages;  but  the  privileges 
and  duties  of  its  men^bers  have  been  con- 
flantly  varying,  as  their  circumflances  al- 
tered. Who  ever  riippofed  that  ihe  "  fub- 
je6is  of  Baptifm,"  without  any  allowance 
for  the  difference  of  circuniftances  under 
the  Gofpel  '•  were  to  be  determined  by 
'•  the  fiibjecls  of  circumcifion  under  the 
*'  law  ?"'  In  the  patriarchal  age,  and  under 
the  Mofaic  difpenfarion,  p('lygamy  and  (Id- 
very  were  in  fome  fenfe  tolerated.  '•  Mo- 
'*  fcs/or  ihe  hardncfs  of  their  hearts  fnffered 
"  them.  At  the  times  cf  this  ignorance  God 
"  winked^  but  nozo  commands  all  vien  every 
**  xvhere  to  repent.'' 

The  Gofpel  does  not  authorize  the  prac- 
tice of  holding  (laves,  or  of  having  a  plural- 
ity of  wives ;  bat  it  allows  every  man  to  have 
his  own  wife^  and  every  woman  her  own  hvjhand ^ 
and  believing  parents,  to  devote  themfelves 
and  their  infant  children  to  God,  in  Bap- 
tifm.  "  They  who  believe  are  blejfed  with 
^'faithful  Abraham.  Believers^  whether  Jews 
**  or  Gentile  s,  are  counted  for  his  feed,  and  (he 
^*  promije  is  made  to  them  and  their  children.'' 

You  tell  us  "  that  the  promifes  were 
^*  made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  while  \r, 
^'  uncircumcifion.''  This  is  true  ;  "  and  that 
^^  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  of  God  to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  23 

"  him  in  Chrijl^  was  about  twenty- four  years 
'»  before    the    covenant    of   circumcifion." 

We  all  know  that  Abraham  believed  God^ 
and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righieoufjiefs. 
The  promife  or  covenant  was  made  before 
he  was  circumcifed  ;  but  ftill  circumcifion 
was  afterward  affixed  as  an  external  vifible 
token  of  this  gracious  covenant,  and  for 
other  purpofes. 

We  are  exprefsly  told  in  the  fourth  chap- 
ter  of  Romans,  eleventh  verfe,  "  That  A- 

braham  received  the  Jign  of  circumcifion^  the 


^^fcalofthe  ri, 
had^  yet  bei 


'ghteovfiufs  oj  the  Jaith^  -which  he 
ing  uncircumcijtd ;  that  he  might 
"  be  the  Father  of  all  them  that  believe."  Thus, 
the  Gofpelzuas  preached  to  Abraham.  That  is, 
the  Gofpel  covenant,  and  the  feal  was  af- 
fixed to  him  and  his  feed. 

It  is  readily  admitted  that  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  was  complicated  with  the  cere- 
monial law.  This  ceremonial  or  Sinai  law, 
which  was  not  made  until  the  Ifraelites  left 
Egypt,  has  been  repealed  or  fuperfeded  by 
the  Gofpel  ;  but  the  Apoftle  informs  us,  in 
the  third  chapter  to  the  Galatians,  and  fev- 
enteenth  verfe,  that  the  "  Covenant  that  was 
*'  confrmed  before  of  God  in  Chrifi^  the  Law 
'^  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  ^ 
''  cannot  difannul^  that  itfiould  make  the  prcm- 
^^  ife  of  none  effcEl^ 

It  is  acknowledged  with  refpe6l  to  adult 
perfons,  that  faith  was  always  pre  requifite^ 


24  AN    APOLOGY    FOR. 

in  order  to  the  circumcifion  of  themfelves 
and  of  their  children ;  but  the  Jews  were 
ready  to  imagine  that  they  had  a  natural 
and  abfolute  right  and  title  to  the  inheri- 
tance and  bleffing  of  their  Father  Abraham. 
It  was  this  miftake  which  our  Saviour  and 
his  Apoftles  endeavoured  to  corred. 

Saint  Paul  obferves,  "  Now  to  Abraham 
"  and  his  feed  were  the  promifcs  inade.  He 
^'  faith  not  to  feeds  as  of  many  ;"  meaning  all 
the  natural  defcendants  of  Abraham,  ^' but 
'•  as  of  ojify  and  to  thy  Seed  which  is  Chrifl,'* 
In  this  placcj  Chrift  is  mentioned  colle6live- 
ly,  as  being  the  head  and  reprefentative  of 
Chriflians,  or  Believers;  for  Believers^  whe- 
ther Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  counted  for  his 
Seed.  Accordingly,  the  fame  Apoftle  adds, 
'•  Chrifl  hath  redeemed  us  froyn  the  curfe  of  the 
^  lazvy  that  the  bkffing  of  Abraham  might  come 
•*  on  the  Gentiles.'" 

As  believing  Ifaac  and  Jacob  inherited  the 
blelTing,  v;hich  iflimael  and  Efau  forfeited 
and  loft  by  unbelief,  ib  the  believing  Gen- 
tiles inherit  that  blefling  of  Abraham,  whicli 
the  unbelieving  Jews  have  forfeited  and 
loft.  They  are  broken  off  from  the  olive  tree^ 
from  the  covenant  of  grace  by  unbelief  andy^ 
are  grafed  in  and  fiand  by  faith. 

The  blefling  of  Abraham  is  promifed  to 
all  believing  Jews  and  to  their  children^  and 
to  thofe  who  are  afar  off^  meaning  the  Gen- 
tiles,   when    they    fiiall   become    believers, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  2^ 

and  of  courfe  to  their  children,  even  to  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  JJiall  call ;  that  is, 
to  thofe  of  every  nation,  who  fhall  become 
believers,  and  of  confcquence,  to  their 
children. 

The  Abrahan-.ic  covenant  has  feveral 
times  been  renewed,  and  is  therefore  fome- 
t-imes  called  a  new  covenant^  in  diflinclion 
from  its  former  editions ;  but  it  has  never 
been  elTentially  altered. 

The  Mofaic  law  was  always  a  different 
thing.  This  law,  the  Apoftle  tells  us,  was 
"  not  againft  the  promifes  of  God,  but  added 
"  hecaufe  of  tranfgr^Jfions  until  Chrijl  jliould 
*«  covie.'''  It  was  annexed,  with  all  its  rites 
and  fervices.  as  an  appendage,  in  order  to 
be  fubfervient  to  the  covenant,  until  the 
gofpel  difpenfation  fhould  commence.  Ac- 
cordingly, when  the  gofpel  commenced, 
this  law,  which  had  ferved  as  an  appendage 
to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  having  be- 
come old  and  ufelefs,  ceafed  ;  but  the  proyn- 
ife  of  God,  or  covenant,  w^as  not  annulled 
thereby,  or  rendered  inefFe61uaI.  The  ex- 
ternal token  of  the  covenant,  by  divine 
appointment,  was  altered  from  circumci- 
fion  to  Baptifm  ;  but  we  have  no  account 
of  any  alteration  as  to  the  fubjeds. 

A  covenant  implies  mutnal  engagem.ents 
and  promifes.  on  fome  condition,  exprefTed 
or  under'tood,   between  two  or  more   par- 
tics.     So   far   as   a   covenant  is  abfolute  it 
C 


26  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

partakes  the  nature  of  a  promife  ;  and  fo 
far  as  a  promife  is  conditional,  it  partakes 
the  nature  of  a  covenant. 

The  promife,  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed,  and  the  covenant  eftab- 
lifhed  between  him  and  them,  were  one 
and  the  fame  thing,  in  fubftance. 

It  is  not  effential  to  the  nature  of  a  cove- 
nant, that  there  fliould  be  any  external 
feal  or  token  ;  accordingly,  Abraham  was 
in  covenant  with  God  feveral  years  before 
the  external  feal  was  appointed. 

When  an  external  feal  or  token  is  ap- 
pointed, it  is  not  effential  to  the  nature  of 
a  covenant,  that  the  token  fhould  be  ex- 
tended to  all  the  members;  accordingly, 
circumcifion,  or  the  external  token  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  was,  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, affixed  to  the  malcvS  only  ;  but 
the  females  were  as  really  included,  after 
the  token  was  affixed  to  the  males,  as  Abra- 
ham was  included,  before  the  token  was 
appointed. 

The  fign  is  often  put  for  the  thing  figni- 
fied  ;  accordingly,  we  find  that  circumci- 
fion is  fometimes  called  the  token  of  the 
covenant, and  fometimes  the  covenant  itfelf. 

In  the  feventeenth  chapter  of  Genefis, 
Cod  fays,  "  /  will  make  a  covenant  between 
"  me  and  thee  :  and  J  will  eJlahliJJi  my  covenant 
"  between  me  and  thee ;  and  thy  feed  after  thte; 
"  to  be  a  God  unto  thee^  and  to  thy  feed  after 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  27 

•'  thee.  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  Jhall 
''  keep  hetzveen  me  and  vo^i^  and  thy  feed  after 
*'  thee.  Every  vian  child  among  you  Jliall  he 
'•  circumciftd  ;  and  it  /hall  be  a  token  of  the 
"  covenant  bHween  me  and  you.'' 

The  children  of  Abraham  were  certainly 
included  with  him  in  the  covenant.  It  is 
impoflible  that  words  fhoiild  be  more  ex- 
plicit. Thus  Mofcs,  and  Jolhua,  and  the 
Prophets,  UTiderftood  this  covenant  in  their 
day,  and  praclifed  accord^in.i^ly  ;  as  it  ap- 
pears from  Deut.  xxix.io,  ^' Ye  ft  and  this  day 
'•  before  the  Lo^'d — all  the  men  of  Ifrael:  your 
"  lit  fie  onc5^  and  your  zuives^  that  thou  //wuld/l 
*'  enler  into  covenant,  that  he  may  be  unto  thee 
"  a  God,  as  he  hath  fcuorn  to  Abraham.''  E- 
zekiel  xvi — 7,  '•  /  entered  into  covenant  with 
*'  thee,  and  thoubecarnef}  mine."  And  in'^b^ 
20ih  verfe,  he  complains  thus,  "  Thou  haft 
'•  taken  thy  fons  and  thy  daughters,  nhich  tkou 
'•  haf  born  unto  me,  and  thefe  thou  hafl  facri- 
^* feed.      Thou  hafl  flain  my  children.'' 

It  is  readily  granted  that  the  Abrahaitiic 
covenant  included  temporal  bieffings.  In 
this  refpeB,  the  Ifraeliies  once  enjoyed  pe- 
culiar advantages ;  but  they  were  princi- 
pally diftinguifhed  by  religious  and  fpiritu- 
al  privileges. 

Thus  it  is  under  the  Gofpel.  Godlinefs 
has  the  promfe  of  the  life  which  now  is,  and 
efpecially  of  that  which  is  to  come. 


28  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

Circumcifion  was  principally  a  Teal  of 
fpiritual  blefTngs,  and  fo  is  Baptifm.  The 
ceremonies  are  different,  but  the  ends  pro- 
pofed  are  fimilar.  They  both  fignify  the 
neceflity  of  inward  renovation  and  fanclifi- 
cation  by  the  word  and  fpirit  of  God,  and 
of  juftification  by  the  blood  of  Chrift. 

Thefe  different  riles  were  conflituted  the 
externa]  tokens  of  initiation  into  the  cov- 
enant— a  badge  of  diflinftion,  and  an  obli- 
gation to  obey  God's  requirements. 

Baptifm  has  evidently  fuperceded  cir- 
cumcifion, and  rendered  it  unneceffary. 
Thus  the  Apoftle  reafoned  in  his  Epiflle  to 
the  ColoflTians,  when  he  found  the  jewifli 
converts  endeavouring  to  enforce  circum- 
cifrjn  on  the  believing  Gentiles,  with  an  in- 
tention to  make  ufe  of  it  as  a  plea  for  in- 
corporating with  chriflianity  the  whole  ce- 
remonial law,  as  being  effential  to  juflifica- 
tion  and  falvaiion. 

He  faw  their  objeft  and  refu fed  to  com- 
ply. Although  he  had,  for  prudential  rca- 
fons,  circumcifed  Timothy^  he  would  not  con- 
fent  to  circumcife  Titus  j  but  informed  them, 
that  Baptifm  was  the  chrijlian  circimicijion^ 
and  that  being  already  baptized  they  were 
ofcourfe  circumcifed  to  all  intents  and 
purpofes.  '•  Beware  lejl  any  vian  fp'il  you 
"  through  phikfophy  and^ain  deceit,  after  the 
"  rudiments  of  the  -worlds  and  not  after  Chrif} ; 
^'for  yc  arc  complete  in  him^   in  u-hom  ye  are 


IxNFANT     BAPTISM.  29 

"  circiimcifed  with   the   circuw.cijion  of  Chriji^ 
"  being  buried  with  him  in  Baptifm.''  Sec. 

The  Teal  is  changed,  bat  the  covensnt  is 
cfTentially  the  fame  Saint  Peter,  when  ad- 
dreffi ng  the  J?ws,  favs  **  Ye  are  the  children 
"  of  the  prophets')  and  of  the  covenant^  which 
"  God  ynade  with  our  fathers^  f^y^^'^E  ^'^^^  ^" 
''  brahaiUi  and  in  thy  feedfJiall  all  the  kindreds 
^'*  of  the  earth  be  hlefjed ;  or,  in  thee^  and  in 
"  thy  feed^  fiall  alljamilies  of  the  earth  be  blejfed. 

The  bleffing  here  prornifed  is  not  mere- 
ly a  perfonal,  but  a  family  bleffing  ;  and  as 
believers  are  children  of  the  promife,  the 
bleffing  extends  to  their  natural  feed,  in 
the  fame  fenfe,  that  it  extended  to  the  nat- 
ural feed  of  faithful  Abraham.  As  the 
children  of  Abraham  had  a  right  to  circum- 
cifion,  the  former  appointed  feal,  {o  the 
infant  children  of  chriftian  parents  have 
now  a  right  to  Bapiifm,  the  prefent  ap- 
pointed feal  of  the  fame  covenant. 
1  am,  &c. 


I 


LETTER      IV. 

SIR, 


N  the   former  jfcetier,   I  endeavoured  to 
fhow,    that    the    covenant    made    with    A- 
braham,   of  which   circumcifion    was    the 
C  2 


30  AN    APOLOGY    F©R 

feal,  was  properly  the  covenant  of  grace. 
The  alterations  which  have  taken  place 
under  the  New-Teftament  difpenfation,  are 
merely  circumflantial.  The  covenant  re- 
mains fubftaniially  the  fame  ;  but  ir  is  of 
the  greateft  importance,  to  diftingiiifh  cor- 
re611y,  between  its  outward  admiuillration 
in  Chrift's  vifible  kingdom,  and  its  inward 
efficacy  and  fan^lifying  effeds,  upon  the 
hearts  and  lives  of  its  menbers.  It  is  e- 
qually  necefifary  to  apprehend  rightly  the 
nature  and  import  of  the  promife,  or  blef- 
fing  pnomifed,  in  this  gracious  covenant. 
Mifapprehenfions,  in  thefe  particulars, 
have  already  occafioned  a  ftrange  coi.Tu- 
(ion  of  ideas,  and  difficulties  which  are  al- 
moft  infuperable. 

'•  I  uill  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  fud.'* 
There  is  nothing  in  this  promife,  which  im- 
plies abfoluie  and  unconditional  falvation. 
The  bleffi'iig  promised  is  not  unfuitable  to 
the  age  and  capacity  of  chiidren.  The 
promife  might  therefore  be  made  to  them, 
with  as  much  propriety  as  to  their  believ- 
ing parents.  '•  /  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to 
thy  feed"  •  That  is,  1  will  be  and  do.  in  the 
way  of  mercy  and  grace,  all  that,  to  and 
for  thee  and  thy  feed,  which  a  Being  of  in- 
finite power,  and  wifiom,  and  goodnefs, 
can  be  and  do^  conlinflp^ly  with  my  cha- 
racter as  moral  Governor  of  the  moral 
world.     The  faving  benefit  of  thofe   blef- 


IMP  ANT     BAPTISM.  3i 


fings  here  promifed  and  beftowed,  depends 
ul'.imately  upon  their  being  rightly  ufed 
and  improved. 

We  have,  under  the  covenant  of  grace, 
various  talents  and  privileges,  intrufted  to 
our  care  and  management  ;  and  we  are 
commanded  to  occupy  and  improve  ihefe 
blellings  and  privileges,  until  our  Lord 
come  and  reckon  with  us.  If  we  fuitably 
and  profitribly  ufe  and  improve  thefe  blef- 
fings,  we  fhall  be  accepted  and  rewarded 
accordingly:  but  if  we  negleft  and  abufe 
them,  we  fhall  be  juftly  punifhed  for  our 
neg'igence  and  wickednefs. 

It  has  always  been  God's  method,  in  all 
his  covenant  dealings  and  tranfaQions,  to 
include  children  with  their  parents.  Thus 
he  conduced  in  the  covenant  made  with 
our  firft  parents  ;  in  the  covenant  made 
with  Noah  ;  in  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  and  in  the  feveral  renewals  of 
this  covenant,  under  the  various  fubfe- 
quent  difpenfations. 

We  very  often  read  of  God's  blefifing 
families,  houfes,  and  hotifeholds.  The  If- 
raelites  were  bleffed  on  the  account  ofAbra- 
ham,  Ifaac,  and  Jacob,  and  other  pious 
anceltors;  and  the  Apoftle  tells  us  that  they 
are  ftill  hdovecl  for  their  Father  s  Jake,  '•  The 
''  Pfalmill  lays,  Wk  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from 
'•  evfrla/l/ng  to  ever  lafli7ig,  upon  them  that  fear 
^'  hiin.  and  his  righteoitfn^  unto  children's  chiU 


32  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

*'  dren^  to  fuch  as  keep  his  covenant^   and  rt- 
*'  member  his  comrdandments  to  do  them'' 

When  Zaccheus  became  a  true  believer 
and  penitent,  Chrift  laid  to  him,  "  This  day, 
*'  is  falvation  come  to  this  honfe.  Jorafavch  as 
"  he  alfo  is  the  fon  of  Abraham.''  When  the 
jailer  enquired  what  he  (hould  do  to  be 
faved,  Pe-er  replied,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
"  J^fi^^  C/^r?/2j  and  thou  Jhalt  be  favcd.  and 
^^thyhoufer 

In  the  allegory  of  the  Olive  Tree,  which 
reprefents  the  church  and  covenant  of 
God,  Jome  of  the  natural  branches,  meaning 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  were  broken  cjf ;  but 
others  remained,  and  the  believingGeniiles, 
who  originally  belonged  to  the  wild  Olive, 
were  grafted  in  amo7ig  the7n  and  partook  of  its 
fatnefs.  Now,  fays  the  Apoftle,  if  the  root 
(he  evidently  meant  the  ancient  Patriarch) 
be  holy,  fo  art  the  branches,  whether  natural 
or  ingrafted. 

The  holinefs  here  referred  to,  is  certain- 
ly a  federal  or  covenant  holinefs,  which  is 
as  applicable  to  children  as  to  their  parents. 
Thus,  "  The  bltffng  of  Abraham,  that  falva- 
''  tion  which  was  of  the  Jeios^,  is  come  upon  the 
"  Gentiles.  They  who  are  of  faith  arc  the  chil 
"  dren  of  Abraham,  and  bkffed  with  faithful 
"  Abraham^  They  are  his  adopted  chil- 
dren ;  and  if  children,  Hkn  heirs  to  all  the 
bleflings  and   privileges   of  the   covenant. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  33 

Thty  art  the  feed  of  the  hhffed^  and  their  off- 
spring with  thein. 

The  duBrine  of  incladi.ig  children  wiih 
their  parents  in  the  covenant,  is  perft^8Jy 
natural  and  congenial  to  our  own  proper 
fentiment  and  feelings.  If  you  Ihould  meet 
with  the  child  of  a  near  relaiion  a'td  dear 
friend,  would  not  your  affe8ion  and  regard 
for  the  parent,  immediately  expand  and  em- 
brace his  child  ?  Would  yen  not  notice  it 
with  particular  attention,  and  treat  it  wiih 
peculiar  kindnefs.  for  the  fake,  and  on  the 
account  of  its  beloved  parent?  Such  be- 
nevolence would  be  natural  and  right,  and 
undoubtedly  correfpondent  to  the  nature 
of  that  Being  from  whom  it  was  derived. 

Believers  are  the  children  of  God,  as  well 
as  of  Abraham.  They  are  his  friends  and 
favourites;  and  his  friendfhip  for  them 
extends  and  embraces  their  natural  chil- 
dren ;  and  according  to  his  promife,  he 
bleffes  them  with  his  richefl  mercies,  tem- 
poral and  fpiritual  ;  but,  as  we.  have  ob- 
ferved,  the  faving  benefit  of  thefc  bleflings 
and  privileges,  under  Providence,  depends 
upon  their  own  right  ufe  and  improvement. 

It  does  not  appear  from  precept,  or  ex- 
ample, or  fair  implication,  that  the  cove- 
nant made  with  x^braham  and  his  pofterity, 
has  ever  been  repealed  or  fet  alide  ;  or 
that  any  alterations  have  taken  place,,  ex- 
cepting fach  as  are  m.crely  circumflaniiaL 


.^4  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

The  children  of  parents  in  the  chriftian 
church,  are  as  capable  of  being  meaibers 
of  the  covenant,  and  of  having  the  requi- 
fite  qaalificaiions,  and  things  fignified  by 
Bapcifm,  as  the  infants  of  Abraham  and  his 
jDofterity  were,  of  being  included  in  the 
covenant  made  wiih  them.    . 

The  Abrahamic  covenant,  or  covenant 
of  circumcifion.  as  it  is  fometimes  called,  we 
are  exprefsly  told,  was  made  with  the  houjtof 
Jfrael.  The  renewals  of  this  covenant,  or 
the  new  covenant^  as  it  is  fometimes  called, 
on  account  of  greater  prisMieges,  we  are 
exprefsiy  told,  is  made  with  the  hoiife  of 
IJratl.  The.  covenant  and  fubjecls  thereof^ 
making  fuitable  allowance  for  the  differ- 
ence of  circumftances,  are  the  fame  under 
the  new  as  under  tke  old  Tefiament.  Bap- 
lifm  is  the  chrijlian  circumcijion  ;  and  this 
appointed  feal  of  the  covenant,  it  appears 
highly  probable,  was  affixed  by  the  Apof- 
tles  and  primitive  minifters  of  Chrift,  to 
the  children  of  believing  parents.  There 
is  nothing  contraryto  this  opinion  afTerted 
or  intimated  in  the  New  Teftament. 

Neither  women,  nor  infants  are  particu- 
larly mentioned,  in  the  account  v^e  have  of 
Baptifm,  during  the  miniltration  of  John 
and  of  our  Saviour;  but  mere  filence.  in  this 
cafe,  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  bap- 
tized. When  our  Saviour  had  afcended, 
Peter,  at  the  feaft  of  Pentecoft,   exhorted 


INFAMt  BAPTISM.  35 

his  hearers  to  faith  and  repentance,  faying, 
*'  The  prcmife  is  to  you  and  your  children;" 
and  we  are  10 Id  '^  That  thy  who  gladly  re- 
"  ceived  his  word,  were  hap-ized  ;  and  the  fame 
''  day  there  were  added  zinto  them^  about  three 
*'  thoufandfoyh."  It  is  not  likely,  that  thole 
perfons  who  lived  at  a  diftance,  brought 
their  chirdren  with  them  on  this  occafion  ; 
but  the  citizens  of  Jerufalem  v.'ho  believ- 
ed, might  devote  their  infant  children  with 
themfelves,  to  God  in  Baprifm.  Thofe  a- 
dult  perfons  who  ^'*  receive  l  the  word  gladly 
were  baptized ;''  and  it  is  further  obieivcd, 
''  that  three  thoufand fouls  were  added  unto  the7nJ^ 
It  is  not  faid  tl;rec  thoufand  men  and  wo- 
men, but  three  thoufand  fouls ^  an  expreffion 
of  the  nioft  indefinite  nature,  and  which, 
according  to  i'SComi!>on  ufnge  in  fcripture, 
includes  perfons  of  both  fexes  and  of  eve- 
ry age. 

We  are  In  other  places  informed  con- 
cernini»  the  Raptiim  of  whole  houfehoids, 
when  the  parent  became  a  believer.  Thus 
"  Lydia  and  her  houfhold  ivere  baptized; — Ste- 
"  phanas  and  his  hotif  hold  were  baptized; — the 
'^jailer  and  allhis^  were  baptized^  fir  aightzc  ay,'* 

The  infpired  writers  have  not  told  us 
whether  thefe  children  were  males  or  fe- 
males. They  have  not  mentioned  the  age 
and  name  of  each  child;  but  the  account 
is  as  pariicular  as  we  could   expect  in  a 


36  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

narrative  of  fa8;s,  fo  extremely  concife  as 
the  hiilory  of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles. 

It  is  poffible  that  forne  of  ihefe  children 
were  old  enough  to  aQ  for  ihemfelves ;  but 
it  appears  to  me,  much  more  probable,  that 
fome,  if  not  all  of  ihem.  were  fo  young  as 
to  have  been  baptized  on  the  account  of 
their  parents.  The  meaning  feems  to  be 
fo  plain  and  obvious^  as'not  to  need  any 
comment ;  efpecially  when  we  confider 
that  infant  children  have  never  been  pre- 
cluded from  Baptifm,  the  prefent  appointed 
token;  and  that  under  former  difpenfa- 
tions,  they  always  ,were  admiued  with  iheir 
parents  into  covenant  wi'h  God. 

Another  very  conclufive  argument  in  fa- 
vour of  infa?n  Baptifm,  v;e  have  recorded 
in  ihe  firft  epiflle  to  the  Corinthians  vii.  14. 
It  feems  that  fome  peiTons  vvbo  had  been 
converted  to  the  chriftian  religion,  were 
connc6led  with  unbelieving  yoke-fellows, 
and  that  the  lawfulnefs  of  their  cohabiting 
with  them  was  doubted.  They  began  to 
imagine  that  a  feparation  was  necefTary,  left 
the  offspring  .of  fuch  marriages  flivmld  be 
deemed  im.pure,  and  unfit  to  be  taken  into 
covenant  with  God. 

Under  the  law  of  Mofes,  the  Ifraelites 
were  forbidden  to  marry  with  unprofelyted 
Gentiles ;  and  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Ne- 
hemiah^  they  were  exprefsly  required  to  put 
away  th'fe  Jiran^e  wives^  whom   they  had  iU 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  37 

licitly  married,  together  uith  their  children. 
But  the  cafe,  we  find,  is  different  under  the 
Gofpel.  The  Gentiles  are  now  to  be  con- 
fidered  as  clcanfed^  and  no  longer  to  be  '*  cal- 
led common  and  unclean.''' 

The  dar!ger  of  beiijg  corrupted  by  an  un. 
believing  panner,  is  not  fo  great  as  it  was 
under  the  former  difpenfation.  There  is  a 
fair  profpecl  that  the  heluvir^g  hvfband  will  be 
in  ft  rumen tal  in  Javing  his  uift  ;  and  that  the 
believing  zui/e  will  be  inftrumental  infaving  her 
hujhand:  and  further,  the  Apoftle  tells  us, 
*'  That  the  imhtheving  hujhand  is  fanciijied  by  the 
'*  wife^  and  the  nnbtlieving  wife  is  JanBificd  by 
*^  the  hvjband ;  elfe  weri  your  children  unclean^ 
*'  but  now  art  thty  holy.''' 

Among  tne  Ifraelites,  many  things  and 
perfons  were  confidered  as  legally  unclean, 
and  vifibly  unholy  ;  and  on  this  account, 
were  interdiBed.  Accordingly,  the  Ifrael- 
ites  were  prohibited  the  ufe  of  various  kinds 
of  food.  They  were  not  allowed  to  affoci- 
ate  with  the  unprofelyied  Gentiles,  in  their 
religious  afTemblies,  or  intermix  wiih  ihem 
in  mairiages;  and  children  born  of  fuch  pa- 
rents, were  confidered  as  unclean  and  unho- 
ly, and  as  not  having  a  right  to  covenant 
privileges.  -         • 

Again  :  thofe  perfons  and  things,  which 
were  confecrated  aiid  fct  apart  for  facred 
and  reiioious  ul'es,  are  ii\  led  clean  ar.d  holy. 
Thus  the  Ifraelites  are  denominated  a  holy 
people,  and  their   fi  /I  born   Lly  t9  the  Lord, 

b 


38  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

Their  children  were  alfo  denominated  hcly^ 
as  being  the  branches  of  a  holy  root — ihe  ofF- 
fpring  of  God's  covenant  people  ;  and  of 
confequence,  had  a  right  to  the  appointed 
token.  And  thus  it  is  under  the  Gofpel :  the 
children  of  believers,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, are  to  be  confidered  and  treated  as 
federally  holy,  and  confequently  as  being 
the  proper  fubjeQs  of  Baptifm. 

Indeed  the  privileges  of  children,  in  this 
refped,  are  now  much  greater  than  they  were 
under  former  difpenfations ;  for  on  fuppofi- 
tion  the  father  or  mother  fhould  happen  to! 
be  an  unbeliever,  this  circumftance  is  not 
allowed  to  infringe  their  claim.  The  cha- 
racter of  children  is  denominated  from  the 
believing  parent ;  and  their  right  to  Baptifni 
is  the  fame  that  it  would  have  been,  if  both 
parents  were  believers.  For  the  Apoftle 
fa)-S5  ''  The  unhdieving  hi'Jhand  is  fanBiJied  by 
'•  (or  to,  as  it  might  have  been  rendered;  the 
"  believing  wife^  nnd  the  unbclievivg  xvife  is  fane- 
''•  tijied  by  (or  to)  the  believing  hufuand^  elfe  were 
^*  your  children  unclean^  but  now  are  th(y  holy" 

Perfons  and  things  are  faid  to  h^  JanWjitd^ 
when  rendered  fubfervient  to  the  end  pro- 
pofed.  The  Sabbath  is  faid  to  be  fanEiJied 
by  God,  becaufe  fet  apart  and  bleifed  by 
him  for  holy  purpofes.  The  food  we  eat  h 
JanBiJied^  when  bleffed  to  the  nourifhment  of 
our  bodies.  AfRi8ions  2iTC  fanciijied,  when 
blcfied  to  our  religious  and  moral  improve- 
ment.     Accordingly,    the  unbelieving  huf^ 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  39 

band  or  wife,  is  faiiBificd  to  the  believing 
companion.  The  conne8ion  is  approved 
and  blefTed  to  the  ends  propofed,  and  efpe- 
daily  as  it  refpecis  their  pofteriiy. 

Perfons  and  things  are  fometimes  repre- 
fented  2.%  JanHijied.  by  means  of  their  relation 
to,  and  connexion  vvi'h,  other  things^  which 
are  termed  holy.  The  gold  \s>  fpoken  of  by 
our  Saviour,  as  ^/zf^^^i ft/ -^j)'  the  Temple^  wiih 
v.'hich  it  was  connected,  and  for  which  it  was 
intended  as  ornaments  or  inenfils.  The 
gift  is  mentioned,  2iS  fanHified  by  the  altar,  with 
which  it  was  conneBed,.  and  upon  which  it 
was  offered  ;  and  thus  ih^  unbelieviijg  huf- 
b  ind  or  wife,  being  married  to  a  believer,  is 
become  one  fl^Jli^  and,  hv  means  oS.  this  uiiion, 
r.iay  be  con  fide  red  as  fanEifi(d^  or  blelTcd  by 
God  to  the  ufe  and  benefit  of  the  believing 
partner :  "  elfe  were  your  children  unclean  ;"  that 
is,  in  the  fame  fenfe.  difquilified  for  Baptifm, 
as  if  both  their  parents  were  unbelievers  or 
heathens;  '^  hut  now  are  they  holy;'  that  is, 
qualified,  as  really  for  a  regular  admiflion 
into  Chrift's  vifibloi covenant  or  kingdom,  as 
if  both  their  parents  had  been  profefied  be- 
iievers. 

The  children  here  fpoken  of,  are  not  adult 
perfons,  but  infants  or  minors ;  and  this  re- 
puted holinefs,  which  eniiiles  them  to  cove- 
nant privileges,  and  in  particular  to  Baptifm. 
the  vifible  token  of  initiation,  is  evidently 
different  in  its  fignification  from  the  fan8i- 
ficaiion  of  the  unbeUeving  hufbind  or  wife. 


40  AN    APOLOCY    FOR 

The  adult  unbeliever  may  be  induced  to 
believe  the  GofpeU  or  may  be  inherently 
and  \'B.v'ing\y  fan^i/ied  by  means  of  the  believ- 
ing confort^  and  of  courfe  have  an  undoubt- 
ed perfonal  right  to  Baptifm,  but  cannot  de- 
rive this  right  from  the  faith  of  any  other 
perfon. 

But  we  find,  in  the  fcriptnre,  that  all  crea- 
tures, relations,  and  enjoyments,  are  faid  to 
ht  fanBiJied  to  believers.  *'  To  the  pure^'  fays 
the  Apoftlf,  ^'^  all  things  are  pure.  Every  crea- 
"  ture  of  God  is  good^  and  nothing  to  be  refufed^ 
"  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving  :  for  it  is 
'^  fantlifi^d  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer. ''  And 
thus  the  unbelieving  hufbj.nd  or  v;ife  h  fane- 
iifi':d  to  the  lawful  ufe  of  the  believer,  fo  far 
as  concerns  their  cohabitation,  their  cotiju- 
gal  fociety,  and  the  federal  holinefs  of  their 
posterity. 

We  do  not  pretend  that  the  inward  quali- 
ty of  real  holinefs  can  be  transferred  from 
parents  to  children;  but  external  privileges, 
covenant  piivileges,  may  be  and  have  been 
tranfmitied  :  the  children  of  believers  are 
therefore  denominated  hofy,  as  having  a  via- 
ble right  to  thefe  covenant  bleffings. 

You  have  not  told  us,  Sir,  how  you  under- 
(land  the  paffage  of  fcripture  we  have  been 
confiderit^.g.  1  will  therefore  juft  notice  the 
explanaiion  as  given  by  Dr.  Gill  and  other 
Baptilt  writers.  They  tell  us  that  the  "  Apof- 
tle  means  a  matrimonial  holinefs.  That  the 
unbelieving  hufband  is  married  or  efpoufed 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  4I 

to  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  married 
to  the  hufband  :  elfe  were  your  children  baf- 
tards,  but  now  arc  ihey  legitiiiiate." 

This  conftruclion  appears  to  be  far-fetch- 
ed, very  unnatural,  and  even  palpably  ab- 
furd.  The  infpired  writers  Vvcre  never  in 
the  habit  of  expn-fliiig  the  idea  of  being  mar- 
ried, by  the  word  (anctified  ;  nor  the  idea  of 
hiflardy^  by  the  word  unclean;  nor  the  idea  of 
legitimacy,  by  the  word  holy. 

The  Corinthian  converts  knew,  as  well  as 
Saint  Paul  could  tell  them,  that  they  were 
married,  and  that  they  had  trafifgreffcd  no 
law  by  thus  marrying.  They  never  doubted 
the  legality  of  their  marriage,  or  the  legitima- 
cy of  their  children.  How  very  unreafona- 
ble  then,  to  fuppofe  that  the  Apoftle  meant 
to  inform  them  that  they  were  married,  and 
that  their  children  were  not  baftard  ,  but  le- 
gitimate; and  in  language  too,  entirely  fo- 
reign to  the  fubjeft  ? 

In  the  days  of  primitive  chriPtianiiy,  it  fre- 
quently happened  that  one  of  the  partners  in 
marriage,  the  hiifbind  or  the  wife,  embraced 
the  chriPiian  religion,  while  the  other  re- 
mained in  a  ftate  of  infiJeli:y;  and  when  we 
coijfider  that  the  law  of  Mo!es  forbade  the 
Ifraelites  to  marry  with  the  unpro.'elyted  Gen- 
tiles, and  that  in  iome  inllances,  in  v;hich 
►marriage  had  t iken  place,  they  were  aftijally 
required  to  put  away  thJr  heathen  wives  and 
children,  it  mighi  very  naturally  become  a 
quellion  among  the  Gentile  converts,  whe- 
D  2 


42  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

ther  the  matrimonial  connexion,  between  ^ 
believer  and  unbeliever,  (hould  be  continu- 
ed or  difTolved  ;  and  how  their  children,  in 
fuch  cafes,  would  be  viewed  and  treated. 
The  Apoflle's  anfwer  to  thefe  queftions,  as  we 
have  explained  it,  is  periinent  and  perfeBly 
fatisfdBory.  He  has  folved  their  doubts  in 
a  inaRerly  and  unanfwerable  manner. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  weak  and  infigni- 
ficant  is  the  apoftle's  reafoning,  according  to 
Dr.  Gill  and  others?  '*  Elfe  were  your  chil- 
"  dren  baftiirds,  but  now  are  they  legiii- 
"  mate."  This  is  mentioned  as  an  inference; 
and  what  are  the  premifes  ?  "  The  unbe- 
'*  lieving  hufband  or  wife  is  married  to  the 
*'•  believer,  otherwife  your  children  would 
"  have  been  baftards  but  now  are  they  legiti- 
'•  mate."  It  is  certainly  true  that  children 
begotten  and  born  of  unmarried  parents,  are 
baftards;  and  it  is  certainly  true  that  children 
begotten  and  born  of  married  parents,  are 
legitimate;  it  is  alfo  equally  certain,  that 
one  and  one  are  two,  and  that  two  and  two 
are  four;  but  who  ever  difputed  thefe  truths  ? 
and  '^Sat  infnired  prophet  or  apoftle  ever 
ferioufly  undertook  to  prove  them  ?  If  the 
difpute  had  been  concerning  the  marriage  of 
thef^.'  perfons,  or  the  legiiimacy  of  their  chil- 
dren, they  would  undoubtedly  have  applied 
to  the  office  oFthe  town  clerk,  or  to  the  pub- 
lic records,  for  a  folution  of  the  queflion  ; 
and  not  to  a  chriftian  caiuiil,  who  refided  in 
the  remote  city  of  Philippi. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  43 

It  Is  a  circumftance  worthy  our  particular 
notice  that  the  Apoflle  had  repeatedly  ftyled 
thefe  perfons,  hufband  and  wife;  and  cer- 
tainly no  man  can  be  a  hufband,  unlefs  he 
have  a  wife,  on  woman  who  is  married  to 
him>  and  no  woman  can  be  a  wife,  unlefs 
(he  have  a  hufband,  or  man  who  is  married 
to  her. 

It  feems  St.  Paul  had  taken  it  for  granted^ 
and  had  repeatedly  and  explicitly  acknow- 
ledged that  they  were  married;  and  would 
he,  after  all  this,  be  fo  tautological,  as  to  fay 
again,  that  the  unbelieving  hufband  is  mar- 
ried to  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
married  to  the  hufband  ?  And  v/ould  he,  in- 
llead  of  ufing  the  common  word  married^ 
which  every  body  underflood,  have  (ubfli- 
tuted  the  word  fauHified^  which  was  never 
before  or  fince,  ufed  in  this  fenfe  by  an  in- 
fpired  writer  ? 

But,  we  are  told  that  *•  marriage  or  ef- 
"  poufal,  is  fometimes  expreffed  in  the  Jew- 
'•  ifh  writing-,  by  a  word  in  their  language, 
'•  which  fignifies  to  fanQify."  And  if  true, 
whatsis  it  to  the  purpofe  ?  The  Apoflle  was 
not  wriiing  to  the  Jews,  in  their  language, 
but  to  the  Greeks,  and  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage ;  and  you  will  again  permit  me  to  ob- 
lerve,  that  this  is  a  novel  fenfe,  in  which  the 
'•  Hebrew  word  Kadajh^  and  the  Greek  word 
"  agiazo^  which  fignify  to  fanftiFy,  were 
'•  never  ufed  in  the  facred  fcripttjres."  As 
to  the  Greek    word    Agios,   which   is    here 


44  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

tranflated  holy,  I  believe  no  perfon  has  pre- 
tended, that  any  author,  unlefs  on  the  pre- 
fent  occafion,  ever  ufed  it  to  fignify  legiti- 
mate. The  conflruQion  is  not  even  plaufi- 
ble.  Our  tranflation  is  undoubtedly  cor- 
re6l.  The  queftion  was  not  refpefting  the 
legitimacy  of  their  children,  but  concerning 
their  right  to  Bapufn);  which  the  ApoPtle 
has  anlwered  affirmaiively. 

If  the  unbeliever  (hould  be  difpofed  to 
forfake  the  believing  confort,  let  him  or  her 
depart.  The  beiiever,  in  this  cafe,  is  not 
permitted  to  renounce  his  religion,  in  order 
to  prevent  a  fepara'ion.  But  if  the  unbe- 
liever be  defirous  of  remaining  with  his  or 
her  believing  companion,  the  believer  is  not 
allowed  to  feparate.  Thofe  reafons,  which 
cxifted  under  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  for 
feparating  in  fuch  cafes,  do  not  exifl  under 
the  Gofpel  of  Chrift,  either  with  refped  to 
the  believing  parent  or  the  children; 

The  danger  of  being  corrupted  by  the  un- 
believer— of  being  feduced  to  a  ftate  of  un- 
belief and  idolatry,  is  lefs  than  it  was ;  while 
the  probability  is  much  greater,  of  reclaim- 
ing the  unbeliever,  and  of  training  up  the 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  c/ the 
Lord.  Perhaps  0  ma?!*  thou  mayejl  fave  thy 
wife ;  or  perhaps  0  woman ^  thou  raajeji  Jave  thy 
hufoand. 

The  marriage  is  approved  and  confirmed  ; 
and  as  thofe  meats  which  were  anciently 
prohibited   as  unclean,  are  now   faid    to   be 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  4^5 

dea7ifed  znd  fanHified ;  To  the  vrihcUeving  hiif- 
hand  or  wife  is  fanciijicd  by  or  to  ihe  ufe  of 
the  believer.  The  children  are  therefore  not 
to  be  confidered  unchan^  or  unfit  f)r  dedica- 
tion to  God,  as  would  have  been  ihe  cafe 
under  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  but  as  hrly  ; 
that  is,  in  the  fan^ie  {&Ti{Q  holy,  or  vifibiy 
qvialified  for  the  ar>pointed  token  of  the 
covenant,  as  if  both  the  parents  had  been 
Ifraelites  under  the  law  ot  Mofes,  or  both 
believers  under  the  Gofpel  of  Chrift. 

This  argument,  founded  on  the  reafonins 
of  St.  Paul,  appears  to  be  conclufive  in  fa- 
vour of  infant  Baptifm.  Its  force  can  never 
be  evaded  or  furmounted.  I  wifh,  dear  Sir, 
that  you  would  review  and  confider  it,  witb- 
attention  and  impartiality. 

1  am,  Sir,  &:c,. 


I 


LETTER      V. 

SIR, 


HAVE  re-affumed  my  pen,  in  order 
to  ftate  other  arguments  in  favour  of  infant 
Baptifm.  It  is  a  fa6l  well  known,  that  our 
Saviour  and  his  Apoftles,  pra6lifed  blefTing 
authoritatively  thofe  perfons  who  were 
qualified  to  receive  the  bleffing.  One  form 
of  pronouncing  this  bleffing  was  in  the  fol- 
lowing words;  "  Peace  he  to^  or  with  you^  from. 


46  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

G?d  ike  Father  and  from  the  Lord  J  ejus  Chrijt^ 
&c."  In  conformity  to  this  praftice  our  Sa- 
viour repeatedly  bieded  his  difciples.  ^'Peace 
"  heivith  you — wy  peace  I  give  unto  you — my  peace 
^*  /  leave  \ithyou^  6?c." 

We  are  not  told  in  what  form  of  words, 
the  Prince  of  Peace  bleffed  thofe  infant  chil- 
dren, who  were  pre'ented  to  him  by  their 
beli.  ving  parents,  for  the  piirpofe  of  receiv- 
ing his  bieiling  ;  liiit.'when  he  fent  forth  his 
difciples  to  preach  the  Go{Dft\^  St.  Matthew 
informs  vis,  that  he  exprefsly  ordered  them, 
upon  entering  '•  a  houfe^  to  falute  it  ;  and  if 
"  the  knife  be  zuorthy^  let  your  peace  come  upon  it^ 
"  but  if  it  he  not  worthy^  lei  your  peace  return  to 
^^ you/'  Saint  Luke  has  explained  to  U5, 
what  this  wortldnefs  of  the  hovfe  is,  which  in- 
titles  the  koifchold  to  the  blefTing.  '•  If  ike 
"  Son  of  Peace  be  there ^  your  peace  fhall  reji  upc% 
"  it  J  ifnot^  it  fhall  return  to  you  again.''  Ob- 
ferve  the  emphatical  words. — If  the  Son  of 
Peace  be  there  ;  if  the  parent  or  head  of  the  fam- 
ily be  a  believer,  or  friend  to  me  and  my  doc- 
trine, pronouce  the  apoftolical  benediftion. 
It  is  obfervable  that  our  Saviour  ufes  the 
v;ord  Son^  in  the  fmgular  number,  as  if  he 
meant  to  preclude  all  cavil,  and  all  uncer- 
tainty as  to  his  meaning.  If  the  Son  of  Peace 
he  there.  If  but  one  of  the  parents  be  a  be- 
liever, deliver  your  mefTage.  Blefs  not  only 
the  believing  parent^  but  the  children — blefs 
^\\^  half e  in  my  name.  And  if  children  are 
intitled  to  the  covenant  bkfiing  of  Abraham, 


INI  ANT    BAPTISM.  ^J 

vn  account  of  their  believing  parent,  they 
certainly  have  a  right  to  the  vidble  initiating 
token  of  the. covenant. 

It  is  admitted  that  our  Saviour  did  not 
baptize  ihofe  children,  who  were  brought  to 
him  for  a  bleffing.  He  never  adminiftered 
the  ordinance  of  Baptifm,  on  any  occafion, 
to  any  perfon,  adult  or  infant ;  but  his  Apof- 
ties  were  in  the  conftant  pradice  of  bapti- 
zing; and  as  has  been  already  fhown,  we  have 
abundant  reafon  to  think  that  they  baptized, 
as  well  as  blefTed,  the  houfeholds  of  believ- 
ers ;  but  if  they  did  not  baptize,  they  cer- 
tainly blefTed  them,  as  having  a  right  to  the 
family  or  covenant  bleffing  of  faithful  Abra- 
ham ;  and  on  this  the  argument  in  favour  of 
infant  Baptifm  depends. 

The  ark  was  a  remarkable  type  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  efpecially  as  it  proNcd 
the  means  of  temporal  falvanon  not  only  to 
Noah,  but  to  his  family.  The  Apoftle  tells 
lis,  in  his  Epiftie  to  the  Hebrews,  xi,  7, 
*•  that  Noah*  by  faith^  being  warned  of  God  of 
*'  things  not  feen  as  jet,  moved  with  fear^  prs^ 
^'  pared  an  ark  to  the  Javing  of  his  houfeJ"  No- 
ah believed  God,  and  was  influenced  by  his 
faith  to  provide  an  ark,  into  which,  by  divine 
appointment,  his  houfehold  was  admitted; 
and  by  means  of  which,  his  family,  his  chil- 
dren, as  well  as  himfelf,  were  faved  alive  ; 
when  all  mankind  befides,  were  overwhelm- 
ed and  deftroyed  by  the  univerfal  deluge. 


4S  AN    APOLOGY    TOK 

Alluding  to  this  wonderful  prefervation  of 
Noah's  family,  and  on  the  account  of  his 
faiih.  Saint  Peter,  in  his  fiift  Epiflle,  iii,  20, 
21,  fpeaking  of  the  ark,  fays,  '•  Wherein  few^ 
'*  that  is^  eight  folds  zi  ere  faved  by  water  "  Both 
the  Apoftles  are  very  particular,  in  mention- 
ing not  only  the  prefervation  of  Noah,  but 
of  his  household,  and  by  means  of  the  ark 
which  floated  upon  the  water.  "  In  like  Ji- 
^  gure  whereunto  Baptijm  doth  alfo  now  fave  us  ;" 
and  truly  the  likenefs  of  the  figure  is  very 
remarkable  ;  for  as  Noah  by  faith  prepared 
an  ark,  into  which  his  houfehold  was  admit- 
ted with  himfelf  and  faved  ;  fo  the  children, 
the  houfehold  of  believers,  are  vifibly  and 
regularly  initiated  with  their  parents,  by 
Baptifm,  into  ihe  covenant  of  grace. 

This  reli^^ious  tranfaftion  muft  be  per- 
formed in  faith,  andin  a  fincere  confcieniious 
manner.  It  is  not,  as  the  Apoftle  obferves, 
the  putting  a -ray  the  flth  cf  the  fl{Jh  ;  thai  is, 
the  mere  external  ceremony  of  Baptifm, 
which  faves  us,  but  the  anfjjcr  of  a  good  con- 
fcievxe  toward  God. 

Some  have  fuppofed  that  this  laft  claufe 
invalidates  the  argument  with  reference  to 
infant  Baptifm  ;  but  it  is  a  miftake.  The 
argument  inftead  of  being  weakened,  is 
ftrengihened  aiid  confirmed;  for  the  like- 
nefs of  the  figure,  ^^hich  the  Apoille'exprefs- 
Jy  mentioned,  and  which  we  are  not  allowed 
to  overlook,  appears  chiefly,  if  not  wholly, 
in  the  ordinance  of  Baptifm,   as  it  rcfpetts 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  49 

rnTants.     It  was  on   the  account   of  Noah's 
faith    and    righteoufnefs,   that  his  family  was 
fpared,  when  all   others   were   dellroyed,  as 
Ave   find    recorded   in  the   fixth  and  feventh 
chapters  of  Genefis.     And  the  Lord  f aid  mito 
Noah,  come  thou,  and  all  thy  hoiife,  into  the  ark  ; 
and  with  thee,  will  I  ejlahlijh  viy  covenant,  for  thee 
have-  Ifeen  righteous  he/ore  me  in  this  generation, 
Noah  fincerely  obeyed  the  divine  command. 
He  a6led  agreeably  to  the  diftaies  of  a  good 
confcience.     Under  the  influence  of  faith  he 
built  the  ark — he  entered  the   ark,   and  in- 
troduced his  houfehold  ;  and    thus  the   be- 
lieving  parent  a6ls  uprightly  and   confcien- 
tioufly  in  devoting  himfelf  and  children  to 
God  in  Baptifm. 

No  peribn  can  perform  acceptably  any 
duty  or  fervice,  eiiher  for  himfelf  or  for 
another,  unlefs  influenced  by  faith  and  a 
good  confcience. 

It  evidently  appears  that  our  falvation  by 
Baptifm  was  typified  by  the  remarkable  pre- 
fervation  of  Noah's  family  by  means  of 
water;  and  efpecially  when  we  confiderthat 
the  children  of  believers  are  vifibly  admitted 
with  their  parents,  by  this  difcriminating 
token,  into  the  gofpel  covenant,  as  the  chil- 
dren of  Noah  were  included  wiih  their 
father  in  the  covenant  God  made  with  him, 
and  on  his  account  and  for  hi^  fake,  were 
admitted  into  the  ark. 

Another   argument    in    favour    of  infant 
Baptifm,  we  find  in  the    firft    Epifde  Po   ihe 
E 


^O  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

Corinthians,  x,  2.  In  which  place  the  A- 
poftle,  fpeaking  of  the  Ifraelites  who  left 
Egypt,  fays,  "  They  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofts 
"  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fca.''  We  are  often 
told  by  the  Baptift,  that  there  is  no  example 
in  facred  fcripiure,  in  favour  of  infant  Bap- 
lifm.  This  declaration  is  incorre6l.  Saint 
Paul  tells  us,  that  "  thy  were  all  baptized^  un- 
"  to  or  into  Mofes»  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea  i' 
or  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  fea,  as  the  original 
words  might  with  great  propriety  have  been 
tranflated.  Here  then  was  infant  Baptifm  5 
not  only  men  and  women  were  baptized,  but 
children,  fucking  children,  in  the  arms  of 
their  parents.  It  is  true  this  happened  in 
the  lime  of  Mofes ;  but  Saint  Paul  quotes 
the  pafTage  and  applies  it  exprefsly  to  the 
Chriftian  Baptifm.  The  Baptifts,  themfelves, 
acknowledge  it  alludes  to  the  Chriftian  Bap- 
tifm. The  argument  is  therefore  as  conclu- 
five  in  favour  of  infant  Baptifm,  as  if  the  event 
had  taken  place  in  the  days  of  the  Apoilles, 
The  Jewifli  writers  particularly  mention, 
that  the  "  Ifraelites  were  baptized  in  the 
"  wiidernefs  and  admitted  into  covenant 
''  with  God  before  the  law  was  given  ;"  and 
accordingly,  as  we  have  obferved,  the  Gen- 
tiles when  profeh  ted  to  their  religion,  were 
initiated  by  Baptifm.  All  the  males  were 
circumcifed,  and  all  the  males  ar.d  females, 
adults  and  infants,  were  baptized;  and  it 
fecms  from  what  the  Jews  faid  to  John,  that 
they  adually  expe8ed  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  5I 

lifm  would  be  agiin  adminiftrated  to  the 
people  of  their  own  nation,  whenever  the 
JSIeffiah.  or  the  Eiias  his  forerunner,  fhould 
appear.  Thev  undoubtedly  expelled  that 
infants  as  well  as  adult  perfons  would  then 
be  baptized,  agreeably  to  what  had  happen- 
ed to  ihem  in  the  wiidernefs,  and  in  con- 
formity to  iheir  common  praBice,  as  it  ref- 
pecled  the  Gentile  profeiytes.  According- 
Iv.  Saint  Paai,  in  a  v^ery  emohatical  nian*:ier, 
and  with  exprefs  reference  to  the  Cbri'^ian 
Baptifm,  mentions  that  they  w-ere  all  bap- 
tized. 

The  v.?ord  alL,  certainly  comprehends  per- 
fons of  both  fexes,  and  of  every  age,  infants 
and  adults;  and  It  is  very  remarkable,  how 
frequently  and  how  emphatically  he  men- 
tions tV.is  univerfal  term.  The  word  all  is 
FCpcaLed  no  lefs  than  fix  times,  as  if  with  de- 
fign  to  prevent  all  pofTibiliiy  of  being  niifun- 
derdood.  '^  They  <?//  did  eat  oF  ^he  fame 
"  fpiriiual  meat. — They  all  did  drink  of  the 
"  fame  fpi ritual  drink. — They  all  were  un- 
"  der  the  cloud.— They  all  pahed  through 
^*  the  fea  ;  and  were  aW  (that  is  males  and 
^'  females,  adults  and  infants)  "baptized  unto 
Mofes  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea. — /]//  thefe 
things  happened  to  them  for  enfamples  and' 
are  written  for  our  admonition,"  fays  the 
Apodle.  And  they  plainly  teach  us  this  im- 
portant truth,  that  as  all  thelfraelites,  together 
with  their  infant  children,  were  baptized  in- 
to Mofes,  fo  all  believers,  together  with  their 


52 


AN    APOLOGY    FOR 


infant  children,    are    to  be  baptized    into 
Chrift. 

Mofes  was  a  type  of  Chrift — his  Baptiffn 
in  the  wildernefs.  was  typical  of  the  Chriftian 
Baptifm.  The  Ifraelites,  who  defcended 
from  Abraham,  being  God's  covenant  peo- 
ple, were  typical  of  believers,  who  are  now 
counted  for  his  feed ;  and  as  all  the  congrega- 
tion oPthe  Ifraelites,  including  adult  parents 
and  their  infant  children,  were  baptized  into 
Mofes,  fo  all  adult  believers,  together  with 
their  infant  children,  are  to  be  baptized  in- 
to Chrift  under  the  Gofp.^l  inlHtution. 
This  appears  to  be  the  Apoftle*s  argument,, 
and  his  reafoning  is  to  the  purpofe. 
1  aoi.  Sir,  cScc 


LETTER      VI. 

SIR, 

X  AM  not  unmindful  that  the  Baptift  con^ 
fider  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  of  which  cir- 
cumcifion  was  the  token,  or  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion,  as  it  is  fomeiimes  called,  as 
being  abfolutely  annulled  ;  and  the  Gofpel 
covenant,  as  being  a  new  and  diftinft  cove- 
nant. This  opinion  we  have  already  endea- 
voured to  confute  ;  but  as  it  appears  to  be 
very  much  relied  upon  by  yourlelf  and  oth- 
ers, it  may  perhaps  merit  a  more  particular: 


INFAKT     BAPTISM.  53 

confideration.  Let  us  then  carefully  and 
impartially  enquire  into  the  meaning  of  the 
Apoftle,  in  the  8ih  chapter  to  the  Hebrews; 
ia  wh'ch  place,  he  is  exprefsly  treating  of  this 
eld  and  new  covenant. 

I  perceive,  Sir,  that  you  have  quoted  the 
i3rh  verfe,  Szc.  but  have  omitted  the  8ife 
and  Qth  Vv^rfes,  uit.hout  which  it  is  impofli- 
ble  to  underftand  your  qiiv)*aiion.  The  13th 
verTe  is  as  follows  :  "  In  that  he  faith  a  new 
'•  covfinan^  he  hath  made  thejirjl  eld  ;  now  that 
"  which  decayeth  and  zvaxcth  old.  i)  ready  to  vcnijli 
''  a.Day.'"  You  muR  be  fenfible  that  it  is  a 
a  mjtter  oF  the  greateft  importance  in  the 
prefent  ^nq;!iry,  for  us  to  undenland  rightly 
the  i  nport  of  this  old  covenant,  and  alfo  to 
afcertain  tlie  lime  when  it  vvas  made.  Is  it 
the  fame  covenant  that  God  eOabliflied  with 
Abraham,  of  which  circumcifion  was  the  ap- 
pointed token?  This  is  what  the  Apoftlc  ha:h 
no  where  afferied.  He  has  not  fo  mu^h  as 
mentioned  the  name  Abraham^  or  the  word 
circumcijion^  in  any  pan  of  the  chapter,  njr 
even  ill  the  fubfequent  cl^apter,  v.hicli  re- 
lates to  the  fame  »ubje6i  ;  but  leem.s  to  have 
anticipated  \our  interp.etati:>n  of  the  text, 
and  to  have  precluded  ii  in  the  moft  tffjc- 
tual  manner.  He  has  exprefs  v  ir>forrned  us 
at  what  time,  and  in  what  place,  this  old  cov- 
enant was  m-ade.  In  order,  if  poUible,  to 
prevent  mirapprehenfi  }ns  of  every  kind,  he 
has  fpecified  the  very  day,  as  we  fi.:d  record- 
ed in  the  o<\\  and  oth  verity;  which  I  muit 
E'2 


54  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

finccrely  wilh  you  would  perufe^vith  impar- 
tial attention.  "  Behold  the  days  come,  faith 
'*  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  cove- 
"  nant  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  and  Jiidah,  not 
*'  according  to  the  covenant  which  I  made  with 
''  their  fathers,  in  the  day,  when  1  took  them  hy 
"  the  hand,  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.'' 

You  will  obferve,  this  old  covenant  was 
ratified  under  the  adminiftration  of  Mofes, 
and  at  the  time  when  the  Ifraelites  left  Egypt. 
How  then  could  it  be  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion,  which  was  given  to  Abraham, 
more  than  four  hundred  years  before  the 
commencement  of  that  memorable  period  ? 
When,  I  took  them  hy  the  hand,  fays  God,  to  lead 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt. 

However,  in  order  to  make  it  appear,  that 
circumcifion  was  part  of  the  law  of  Mofes, 
you  further  quote  the  23d  verfe  of  the  7th 
chapter  of  John.  ^^  If  0.  7nan,  on  the  Sabbath 
"  day,  receive  circumcifion,  that  the  law  of  Mofes 
^'^  Jhould  not  be  broken,''  Sec.  I  wifh,  Sir,  you 
had  alfo  quoted  the  preceding  verfe  ;  for  the 
Saviour  is  very  careful  to  remind  us  that  this 
covenant  was  not  derived,  originally,  from 
Mofes,  but  from  the  Patriarchs;  meaning  A- 
braham,  Ifaac  and  Jacob.  "  Mofes  therefore," 
fays  he  ''gave  unto  you  circumcfion,  not  becaufe 
«•  it  is  0/  Mofis,  but  of  the  fathers." 

Circumcifion  was  annexed  to  the  law  of 
Mofes,  and  exprefsiy  enforced  by  his  autho- 
rity ;  or  eUe,  as  the  ApoQle  intimates,  this 
law  was  added  to  the  covenant  of  circumcifion 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  55 

becaufe  of  tranfgrejjions^  until  Chrijl  Jliould  come» 
The  Mofaic  law  is  accordingly  fuperfeded; 
but  we  are  told,  that  it  cannot  difannul  the 
covenant  which  was  he/ore  confirmed  of  God  in 
Chrijl.  and  make  the  promife  of  no  efftB,  The 
Apoftle  undoubtedly  meant  the  promife  made 
to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion. 

You  tell  us  exprefsly  "  that  the  covenant 
"  of  circumcifion  was  more  than  1700  years 
"  ago,  decaying,  waxing  old,  and  ready  to 
''  vanifli  away."  But  the  Apoftle  does  not 
denominate  this  the  "  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion." He  ftyles  it  the  covenant  xjchich  God 
made  with  the  Ifraelites^  in  the  day  zvhen  he  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  lead  thein  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  was 
eftablifhed  more  than  four  hundred  years 
previous  to  this  event.  Our  Saviour,  as  we 
have  obferved,  informs  us,  that  circumcifion, 
although  enjoined  by  Mofes  as  a  law-giver 
and  ruler  of  the  people,  was  not  '^fromhim^ 
hut  from  the  fathers,''  It  was  as  early  as  the 
d  lys  of  Abraham  ;  and  certainly  the  covenant^ 
of  which  circumcifion  was  the  token,  could 
not  be  of  a  later  date.  The  ceremonial 
law,  or  Sinai  and  Horcb  covenant,  has  wax- 
ed old,  and  has  ceafed  ;  but  it  has  not  ren- 
dered of  no  effcB  the  much  older  covenant 
of  circumcifion. 

Ycm  again  proceed  to  obferve  '•  that  cir- 
cumcifioa"  (meaning,  as  I  fuppofe,  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion  as  you  hadlermed  it 


5^  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

in  the  previous  fentence)  "  is  evidently  a 
«'  very  important  part  of  that  law  which  is 
'•  dilannulled.  for  faith  Paul  to  the  Gabiians, 
«■•  chapter  v,  2 — 3,  if  ye  be  circumcifed  Chrifl: 
'•  fnall  profit  you  7ioihi7ig  For  I  teP.ify 
'•'agaia  to  every  man  thai  is  circmncifid  that 
'•  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  la^v." 

C.\n  yo  J  pOiTi'o'.y  fa opofe,  that  Saint  Paa!,^ 
in  this  place,  inietided  to  be  underfiood  lit- 
erally? Did  the  Apoille  ima^^ine,  that  by 
circumcifing  Timothy,  he  fhoald  deprive 
him  of  all  the  b  nefits  of  redemption,  and 
thereby  oblige  liim  to  obferve  all  the  ri'.es 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Mofaic  difpenfaiion  ? 
No,  Sir.  How  cfien  has  he  told  us  that  cir- 
eiimcifion  was  a  thing  of  no  importance? 
**  For  in  CJviJl  Jefiis^  n-:ither  circumcifion  avail ■ 
'•  cih  any  things  nor  undrcumcif,on^  but  a  new 
"  creature''  And  a^^ain,  "  circuracifion  is 
'•  notJiing  and lincircnmcifi en  is  nothings  hut  keep- 
*•  ing  the  commandments  of  God  " 

Circumcifion  being  fuperfeded  by  Bap-, 
tifm.  Saint  Paul  confidered  it  in  the  light  of 
the  moft  pcrfeQ  indifference,  both  as  it  re- 
fpefted  the  Law  of  Mofes,  and  as  it  refpeH- 
ed  juftification  ar,d  faivation  by  Jefus  Chrift. 
Viewing  circumcifion  in  this  light,  he  be- 
lieved it  might  b:^  wiih  propriety  omitteld  or 
praBifed,  as  prudence  or  policy  fnould  re- 
quire ;  accoidingly  the  pra6iice  was  for  fome 
time  continued  among  the  Jewifh  converts, 
and  difcoftinued  among  the  Gentile  con- 
verts.   But  the  opinion  and  practice  of  St. Paul 


INFANT   BAPTISM. 


57 


feeing  mifreprefented,  the  believing  Jews  at 
Jerufalem,  were  greatly  alarmed,  as  it  ap- 
pears from  the  Acls  of  the  Ap:)fties,  21ft 
chapter,  20fh,  21ft  and  22d  verfes,  Sec, 
«•  Thou  feed  brother,  how  via^iy  thoufands  of 
^^  the  Jews  there  are  -which  bdicve ;  and  ihey 
''  are  all  zealous  of  the  law;  and  they  are  in- 
''^formed  of  thee^  that  thou  teachejl  all  the  JewSy 
''  which  are  among  the  Gentiles,  to  forfake 
"  Mofes,  faying^  that  they  ought  not  to  circumafe 
"  their  childrc7i,  neither  to  walk  after  the  cuf- 
"  toms.  Do  therefore  this  that  we  fay  unto- 
"  thee  ;  we  have  four  men  which  have  a  vow 
"  on  them  ;  take  them  and  purify  thyfelf 
"  wiih  them,  and  be  at  charges  with  them, 
"  that  they  may  (have  their  heads,  and  that 
"  all  may  know  that  thofe  things  whereof  they  are 
"  informed  concerning  thee  are  nothings  but  that 
"  thou  thy f  If  alfo^  walkejl  orderly  and  kcepefthe 
'•  lazo.  As  touching  the  Gentiles  which  believe^ 
''  we  have  written,  and  ccncludtd  that  they  obftrve 
"  no  fuch  things  &:c." 

The  believing  Jews  confidered  circum- 
cifion  as  an  unfpeakable  privilege.  The 
believing  Gentiles  confidered  it  as  a  griev- 
ous and  intolerable  burden.  The  Apoftle 
confidered  Baptifm,  as  being  to  all  intents 
and  purpofes,  fu|^cient  without  circumci- 
fion.  He  fuppofed  that  the  rite  of  circum- 
cifion  was  unneceffary,  but  not  unlawful. — 
That  it  was  neither  required,  nor  prohibited 
under  the  Gofpel  difpenfation  ;  and  there- 
fore  expedient  and  proper,  that    both  Jewsi 


.^§  AN    APOLOGY    FOR. 

and  Gentiles  (hould  be  gratified,  although 
iheir  wifhes  in"',this  particular,  were  direftly 
oppofite  to  each  other. 

Saint  Peter,  who  preached  principal- 
ly to  the  jews,  was  denominated  the  minijler 
of  the  circumcijion  ;  and  Saint  Paul,  who 
preached  principally  to  the  Gentiles,  was  de- 
noiTiinated  the  min'Jler  of  the  uncircumcijion. 

But  it  Teems  that  fome  of  thofe  believing 
Jews,  who  were  ftrongly  prejudiced  in  fa- 
vour of  circumcifion,  and  very  ftrenuous, 
infilled  that  the  Gentiles  who  believed, 
fl^ould  he  circumcifed.  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  deputed  as  meflengers  to  Jerufalem 
concerning  this  qfieftion.  A  convention  of 
Elders  and  Apoftles  was  called.  They  de- 
liberated, and  decided  agreeably  to  the  opin- 
ion and  praftice  of  Saint  Paul;  and  the  dc- 
eifion  v/as  exceedingly  gratifying  to  the  Gen- 
tile converts. 

The  convention  appear  to  have  confider-. 
ed  the  cafe  before  them,  principally,  as  a 
queftion  of  expediency.  They  did  not  pro- 
hibit the  Jev;s  from  continuing  the  practice 
of  circumcifion;  but  thought  it  highly  im» 
proper  and  impolitic,  to  impofe  this  unnecef- 
fary  burden  on  the  believing  Gentiles,  it  be- 
ing very  grievous  and  contrary  to  their  incli- 
nation. A  relpeQable  committee  was  there- 
fore appointed  to  make  the  communication^ 
and  to  inform  the  Gentiles  who  believed, 
that  thofe  perfons,  who  had  troubled  them 
about  the  necefTity  of  circumcifion,  had  a61ed) 


INFANT    BAFTIS^M.  59 

in  ibis  particular,   \\'holly   without  apoftolic 
orders  and  authority. 

You  will  find  the  whole  affair  very  minute- 
ly related  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  A6ls 
of  the  Apoliles.  But  notwiihftanding  the  re- 
fult  of  this  infpired  and  venerable  council, 
Saint  Paul  tells  the  Galatians,  in  the  fecond 
chapter,  and  4ih  verfe,  that  certain  ^^falft 
''  brethren  had  been  brought  in  unaivarts^  who 
"  came  privily  to  [py  out  our  liberty^  which  we 
*'  have  in  Chrijl  Jejus*^  that  they  inight  bring  its 
<«  into  bondage.'''  And  in  the  6th  chapter, 
12th  and  i3tb  verfes,  he  acquaints  thcnij 
that  thefe  falfe  and  hypocritical  brethren 
*'  conjlrain  you  to  be  circumcijcd*  left  thty  Jliould 
^'' fuffer  perfecution  for  the  crofs  of  Chrijl ;  and 
''  that  they  may  glory  inyour  fleJJiS'  They  pre- 
tended that  circumcifion  was  abfolutely  ef- 
fential  to  falvation,  and  that  this  rite  bound 
and  obliged  perfons  to  keep  the  whole  law 
of  Mofes. 

Saint  Paul  was  an  acute  reafoner.  He 
fometimes  reafoned  from  the  principles  of 
natural  and  revealed  religion,  and  fometimes 
from  the  conceffions  and  opinions  of  his  ad- 
verfaries.  For  the  fake  of  argument,  he 
fometimes  admitted  their  erroneous  princi- 
ples, as  was  the  cafe  m  thoie  paflages  you 
have  quoted  ;  and  this,  I  imagine,  occahon- 
ed  your  miftake  as  to  the  meaning. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  that  troublefome 
feO:,  and  not  ftriQly  the  opinion  of  Saint 
Paul,  "  That  every  man  who  was  drcimcifed^ 


'60  AN    APOLOeV    FOR 

*'  was  thereby  become  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole 
*•  law,*'  It  was  literally  true  upon  their  prin- 
ciples, but  not  upon  his^  that  if  the  Galatians 
had  been  «'  circimicifed^ChriJl  Jefus  would  have 
^^  profited  them  nothing"  For  they  held  and 
endeavoured  to  perfuade  the  Gentiles,  "  That 
'*  unlefs  they  were  circiinicifed,  and  kept  the  law  oj 
"  Mofesj  they  could  not  befaved.'' — "  That  juftifi- 
"  cation  and  falvation  were  to  be  expefted 
*«  and  obtained  upon  this  condition."  This 
the  Apoftle  calls  a  fiibverficn  of  the  Go/pel  of 
Chrijl ;  and  obferves  in  the  fourth  verfe, 
which  immediately  follows  your  quotation, 
''  That  Chrifi  is  become  of  no  e^eB  ;  whofoever 
*'  of  you  are  jiijlified  by  the  law^  ye  are  fallen 
^^  from  grace  "  ' 

Thus,  as  you  have  done,  thefe  hypocritical 
teachers,  confidered  "  the  covenant  of  cir- 
*'  cumcifion,  as  an  important  part  of  the  law 
'«  of  Mofes  ;"  and  as  that  part  which  bound 
and  obliged  thofe  perfons  who  were  circura- 
cifed  to  conform  to  all  its  other  parts. 

This  falfe  and  dangerous  conilru6lion 
greatly  alarmed  St.  Paul.  Although  he  had 
circiimcifed  his  beloved  Ti7nothy,  whofe  moth- 
er was  a  Jewefs,  "  he  would  not  be  co7npelled 
**  to  circumcife  Titus^  who  luas  a  Greek'' 

But,  independently  of  this  erroneous  opin- 
ion, the  Apoftle  evidently  conCdered  cir- 
cumcifion  merely  as  the  former  token  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  and  of  no  importance, 
one  way  or  the  other,  as  it  refpe6led  the  juf- 
tificaiion  ^nd   falvation  of  believers.      He 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  6l 

accordingly  adds,  in  the   6ih   verfe  of  the 
fame  chapter,  '•  For  in   Jejus  Chrijl^   neither 
circumcijion  availeth  any  things   nor  imcircumci- 
Jion^  hut  faith  that  -worktth  by  love,'' 

The  laft  argument,  which  you  adduce  in 
order  to  ihow  that  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion  is  difannuiled,  is  taken  from  the  3d  chap- 
ter of  Galatians,  17th  verfe.  "  You  tell  us, 
<«  that  the  covenant,  which  cannot  be  made 
"  void,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
<'  before  the  law,  whereas  the  covenant  of 
*^  circumcifion  was  about  four  hundred  and 
**  fix  years  before  the  law  •,  and  confequent- 
*'  ly,  that  the  covenant  which  was  confirm- 
*'  ed  of  God  to  Abraham  in  Chrifl,  was 
^'  while  he  was  in  uncircumcifion,  and  about 
*'  twenty-four  years  before  the  covenant  of 
"  circumcifion  was  given." 

If  we  admit  this  calculation  to  be  corre6l5 
it  will  afford  no  argument  in  favour  of  your 
opinion.  You  have  indeed  afferted  that 
God  made  two  diftincl  covenants  with  Abra- 
ham. This  was  necelfary  in  order  to  fup- 
port  your  hypothefis  ;  but  you  have  not 
proved  the  affertion,  nor  even  attempted  to 
produce  any  proof  in  its  vindication.  You 
have  not  pointed  out  the  diftin6lion  or  differ- 
ence between  thefe  two  covenants,  or  told 
us  of  any  bleffing  llipulated  in  the  firft,  that 
was  not  included  in  the  lafl. 

I  have  fnown,  in  a  preceding  letter,  that  a 
covenant  may  be  made,  and  may  exiftjwithout 
any  external,   vifible  token  3    that  a  tokea 
F 


62  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

may  be  affixed,  at  the  very  time  when  the 
covenant  is  made,  or  in  any  fucceeding  peri- 
od; and  that  the  token  of  the  covenant  is, 
by  a  figure,  fometimes  put  for  the  covenant 
itfelf.  You  muft  allow,  that  circumcifion 
was  the  token  o^  a  covenant  j  and  how  does 
it  appear,  that  it  was  not  the  token  of  that 
very  fame  covenants,  which  you  fay  was  made 
with  Abraham  twenty-four  years  before  this 
token  was  appointed  ?  The  only  queflion  of 
any  importance,  in  the  prefent  cafe,  is  this  t 
Was  the  covenant  of  circumcfion^  ftriQly  fpeak- 
ing,  a  new  and  diftinB;  covenant,  or  was  it 
the  former  covenant  renewed  ?  In  order  to 
folve  this  queftion  rightly,  we  muft  attend  to 
the  articles  of  ftipulation,  and  fee  if  they 
agree  in  both  cafes ;  or  at  leaft,  fee  if  there 
was  any  privilege  ftipulated  to  Abraham  and 
his  feed,  in  the  firft  covenant,  which  was  not 
implied  in  the  laft. 

In  the  i2th  chapter  of  Genefis,  ift,  2d,  3d 
and  7th  verfes,  we  find  Abraham  command- 
ed to  leave  his  country,  and  kindred,  and  fath- 
er's houfe,  and  to  remove  into  an  unknown 
land.  "God  pro  mi  fed,  I  willhlefs  thee  and  make 
''  thee  a  hlejfing  ;  and  in  thee  and  in  thy  feed  fhall 
"  2.]]  families  of  the  earth  he  hleffed  ;  and  I  tuill 
*'  make  of  thee  a  great  nation^  and  unto  thy  feed 
"  will  I  give  this  land.''  This  promife  was  ex- 
prefsly  renewed  with  Abraham,  about  the 
time  that  Lot  was  feparated  from  him. 

In  the  15th  chapter  we  find  Abraham 
complaining   becaufe    he  had  no   children. 


rNFANT    BAPTISM.  €^ 

God  again  promifed  •'  that  he  fhould  have  a 
"  numerous  pofterity,  and  that  his  feed 
"  fhould  pofTe fs  the  land.  Abraham^'' we  htq 
told,  ''  belifvid  God,  and  it  uas  covjitedio  him  for 
righteoufnefs.''  On  this  occafion,  for  the  firft 
lime,  the  promife  was  denominated  a  cove- 
nant, as  is  particularly  recorded  in  the  17th 
verfe.  '*  In  that  fame  day  the  Lo7'd  made  a 
"  covenant  with  Abraham*  Jayiyig^  unto  thy  feed 
"  have  I  given  this  land^from  the  river  of  E^ypt^ 
"  to  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates,'''' 

It  was  undoubtedly  a  number  of  years 
after  the  promife  was  made,  before  God  con- 
firmed it  to  Abraham  in  the  form  of  a  cove- 
nant; for  he  had,  in  the  mean  time,  acquired 
great  pofiTedions.  ap.d  a  numerous  houfehold. 

In  the  17th  chapter  we  have  an  account 
of  the  appointment  of  circumcifion.  I  fhall 
not  fpecify  any  particular  verfe;  for  the 
whole  chapter  has  reference  to  the  impor- 
tant and  foiiemn  tranfaflion,  and  merits  our 
unprejudiced  attention. 

When  ••  Abraham  xjcas  ninety  and  nine  yean 
"  old^  the  Lord  appeared  to  h.m  and  f aid,  I  am  the 
**  Almighty  God,  walk  btfore  me  and  be  thou  per - 
^^  feH'i  and  I  will  make  my  covenant  bctwet^i  ms 
"  and  thee,''  &c. 

The  blcfling  of  this  covenant,  as  we  have 
obferved,  was  promifed  to  Abraham,  wheD 
about  feventy  and  five  years  old.  This 
promife  we  have  (hown  was  afterward  de- 
nominated a  covenant ;  but  ftill  there  was  no 
token  appointed  to  this  covenant,  either  on 


64  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

God's  part,  or  on  Abraham's.  The  defign' 
of  the  prefent  interview  wa»,  to  confirm  the 
covenant,  by  appointing  thefe  external  to- 
kens. God  therefore  faid,  "  As  for  7ne,  my 
''  covenant  is  with  thee ;  neither  Jliall  thy  name 
"  any  more  be  called  Ahram  ;  but  thy  oiamc  /hall 
*'  be  Abraham  ;  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have 
^^  I  made  thee.''  Here  the  covenant  was  put 
for  the  token.  This  alteration  of  the  name 
was  the  token  of  the  covenant,  on  God's 
part. 

"  And  God  faid  unto  Abraham,  thou  (halt 
*'  therefore  keep  my  covenant,  thou  and 
''  thy  feed  after  thee  in  their  generations.. 
"  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  (hall  keep 
^»  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  feed  afier 
"  thee,  every  man  child  among  you,  (liall 
"  be  circumcifed."  Here  again  the  covenant^ 
by  a  very  common  figure,  is  put  for  the  token^ 
.as  appears  undeniably  from  the  very  next 
words;  "  And  ye  fhali  circiimcife  the  fie:n> 
"  of  your  forefkin^  and  ii  (hall  be  a  token  of 
"  ihc  Covenant,"betwixt  me  and  you." 

As  the  alteration  of  Abram's  name  v/as 
the  vifible  token  of  the  covenant  on  God's 
part,  fo  circumcifion  was  the  vifible  token 
of  the  covenant  on  Abraham's  part. 

It  will  ftill  appear  more  clearly,  that  this  is 
the  fame  covenant,  which  had  been  previ- 
oufly  ratified,  by  confidering  and  comparing 
the  articles  of  (lipulation.  For  on  this,  and 
on  all  the  former  occafions,  we  find  that  the 
blefTmg  proraifed  to  Abraham    was  fubftan- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  65 

tially  the  fame.  It  is  now,  however,  as  might 
have  been  expefted,  more  particularly  de- 
fined. In  this  17th  chapter  of  Genefis, 
which  relates  wholly  to  that  covenant,  of 
which  circumcifion  was  now  appointed  the 
token,  "  God  promifed  Ab?aham  a  numerous 
"  pojlcrity  and  the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  pofjef- 
^^  fion ;'  which  blcffing  had  been  already 
repeatedly  mentioned.  He  alfo  now  prom- 
ifed, "  to  he  a  God  to  him^  and  to  his  feed  after 
^'  him ;"  which  comprehenfive  promife  in- 
cluded every  bleffing,  temporal  and  fpiritu- 
al.  But  to  be  more  particular,  God  now 
promifed  for  the  firft  time,  that  this  covenant 
fhould  be  everkfling — "  That  Sarah  fliall  hear 
*^  thee  a  Son^  and  thoufhalt  call  his  name  Ifaac  ; 
"  and  I  will  efablifh  my  covenant  uithhimfor  an 
"  everlafling  covenant^  and  with  his  fetd  after 
^^  him:' 

In  the  22d  chapter,  1,5th,  i6ih  and  lyih 
verfes,  we  find  this  fame  covenant  again  re- 
newed and  confirmed  with  the  greateft  fo- 
lemnity  conceivable.  "  By  myfelf  have  I 
^'  fworn^  faith  the  Lord ;  for  becaufe  thou  haft 
'«  done  this  thing,  and  haft  not  withheld  thy 
'«  fon,  thine  only  fon  ;  that  io  bleffing,  I  will 
«*  blefs  thee,  and  in  multiplying,  I  will  mul- 
"  tiply  thy  feed  as  the  ftars  of  heaven,  and 
*5  as  the  fand  which  is  upon  the  fea  fliore; 
<«  and  thy  feed  fliall  pofirefs  the  gates  of  their 
"  enemies;  and  in  thy  feed,  fhall  all  families 
"  of  the  earth  be  bleffed,  becaufe  thou  haft 
"  obeyed  mv  voice,'- 
F2 


66  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

Thus  you  obferve  the  procefs ;  and  it  ex- 
hibits a  mod  ftriking,  beautiful  climax. 

In  the  firfl:  inftance,  we  fee  the  bleffing 
confirmed  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  by 
promife. 

Secondly,  this  promifed  bleffing  is  con- 
firmed by  covenant. 

Thirdly,  this  covenanted  bleffing  is  con- 
firmed by  annexing  the  token  of  circumcifion  ; 
and  fourthly,  by  the  oath  of  Almighty  God. 

We  have  faid,  that  fo  far  as  any  promife 
is  conditional,  it  partakes  the  nature  .  of  a 
covenant.  The  promife  made  to  Abraham, 
and  the  covenant  of  which  circumcifion  was 
the  token,  appear  to  be  fubftantially  the 
fame;  this  covenant  therefore,  has  not  been 
aboiifhed  as  you  fuppofed,  but  is  confirmed 
and  eftablifhed. 

This  truth  may  be  further  demonftrated, 
by  pointing  out  the  occafion  of  your  mif- 
take.  You  have  told  us  "that  the  covenant 
"  which  cannot  be  made  void,  was  430 
'•  years  before  the  law." 

By  fixing  the  date  of  the  covenant,  at  the 
very  time  when  the  promife  was  firfl  made  to 
Abraham,  it  evidently  appears  that  you  mufl 
mean  the  fame  thing  by  the  covenant^  which 
St.  Paul  meant  by  the  promife.  And  although, 
as  we  have  obferved,  the  promife^  and  the  cove- 
nant,  were  fubftantially  the  fame  •  yet  the 
Apoftle,  in  order  10  guard  againft  miftakes, 
very  carefully  retains  the  nominal  and  cir- 
cumilaniial     diflintlion;     and     accordingly 


rNFANT    BAPTISM.  6j 

fpeaks  of  the  covenant^  which  cannot  be  difdn*- 
nulled,  and  of  the  promiJe<i  uhich  cannot  he  made 
void.  But,  negleding  the  fcriptare  lan- 
guage, and  fubdituting  the  word  covenant^ 
in  the  room  of  the  "word  promife,  you  have 
unhappily  fallen  into  that  very  error,  which 
he  endeavoured  to  prevent. 

tf  the  words  of  the  17th  verfe  in  the  3d 
chapter  of  Galatians,  were  tranfpofed  as  they 
ought  to  be,  and  the  nominative  cafe  placed 
before,  and  the  obje61ive  cafe  after,  the  verb, 
according  to  the  grammatical  order  of  the 
Englifh  language,  they  would  ftand  as  fol- 
lows :  And  I  fay  this,  the  law  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after  (the  promife)  can 
not  dif annul  the  covenant,  which  was  before  (the 
law)  confy^ned  of  God  in  Chrift,  that  it  fJiould 
make  the  promife  of  none  efftB. 

Two  prepofuions  are  mentioned  in  this 
text,  but  no  words  exprelTed  in  order  to  be 
governed  by  them.  It  is  therefore  necelTa- 
ry,  if  we  would  make  good  grammar  and 
good  fenfe,  that  two  words  fhould  be  under- 
liood  ;  and  it  is  very  eafy  to  afcertain  thefe 
words.  The  prepofition  cfter,  evidently  has 
reference  to  the  promife,  becaufe  the  law 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the 
promife.  The  prepofition  before,  evidently 
has  reference  to  the  law,  becaufe  the  covenant 
was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  four  hun- 
dred  and  fix  years  before  the  law.  It  was 
corfrnud.  as  we  have  obferved,  by  changing 


6^  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

the  name  Ahram  to  Abraham^  and  by  affixing 
the  token  of  circiimcijion^  and  by  the  oath  of 
God,' 

I  am^  Sir,  <!c€. 


LETTER      VIL  ' 

SIR, 

HE  covenant  of  circumcifion  does  not 
appear  to  be  vacated,  but  confirmed  and  ef- 
tablifhed.  The  bleffingspromifed  in  this  cov- 
enant were  not  wholly  or  principally  of  a 
temporal,  but  chiefly  of  a  religious  and  fpi- 
ritual  nature.  Accordingly,  when  the  Apof- 
tle  enquires,  *•  V/kat  advantage  hath  the  Jew, 
^'  and  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcifion  P"  he 
anfvvers,  ''much  everyway^''  much  profit  even 
of  a  temporal  kind,  "  hut  chiefly  becauje  unto 
««  them  were  committed  the  oracles  oJGodJ"  Their 
peculiar  covenanted  privileges  were  chiefly 
of  a  religious  kind.  Circumcifion  was  a  to- 
ken of  their  faith  in  the  God  of  Ifrael,  and 
of  their  acknowledged  allegiance  to  his  au- 
thority and  government.  Abraham,  we  are 
told,;  '*  received  thefign  (or  facrament)  of  cir- 
'•  cwncifion^  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith^ 
««  which  he  ha'd,  yet  being  uncircmncifd.'" 

The  fame  gradation  is  oblervable  with 
refpeft  to  Abraham's  faith  and  obedience, 
which  has  been    noticed   with  refpe6l  to  the 


IN?  ANT    BAPTISM.  6^ 

confirmation  of  the  covenant.  '•  Abraham 
*•  believed  God^  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
"  righteoujnefs ;"  accordingly  the  covenant 
was  made  and  the  bleffing  ftipulated. 

After  this,  \n  a  formal  and  folemn  manner, 
Abraham  engaged  to  continue  fubmiRive 
and  obedient,  .and  then  received  the  rite  cf 
ciratmcijion,  as  an  obligatory  ye/i/,  on  his  part 
of  the  covenant,  of  that  obedience,  or  right- 
eoi/fnefs^  .which  he  had  exprefsly  promifed  ; 
and  which  was  to  be  the  refult  of  that  faith^ 
which  he  had  while  uncircmncifed. 

The  faithful,  pious  Patriarch,  obeyed  God. 
in  every  particular  ;  even  in  that  hard  and 
difficult  cafe  of  offering  up  Ifaac^  his  only  fon^. 
upon  the  altar.  Thus,  you  *' fee^  how  faith^ 
'•  wrought  with  his  works  and  by  works^  was  faith 
*'  made  ferfeclJ' 

He  became,  eminently,  the  Father  of  them 
who  believe.  Believers,  of  every  nation,  arc 
to  be  confidered  arid  treated  as  his  feed.  St. 
Paul  concludes  the  third  chapter  to  the  Ga- 
latians.  by  faying,  "ye  are  all  ihe  children 
««  of  God  by  faith  in  Chrift  Jefus ;  for  as 
<'  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into^ 
«*  Chrifl^  have  put  on  Chi  id.  There  is  nei- 
«'  ther  Jew  nor  Greek  ;  there  is  neither  bond 
'«  nor  free  ;  there  is  neither  male  nor  fe- 
"  male  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Chrift  Jefus; 
'•  and  if  ye  be  Chrift' s^  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
^' feed  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife." 

If  believers  are  the  reputed  (ced  of  Abra- 
ham and  Jidrs  to  the  bleffing  promifed,  even. 


JO  AN    APOLOeY    FOR 

as  Ifaac*  then  it  follows,  that  they  and  their 
infant  children  have  the  fame  rioht  to  Bap^ 
tifm,  the  prefent  vifible,  initiating  token  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  Ifaac  and  his 
infant  children  had  to  circumcifion,  the  for- 
mer token. 

But,  to  this  inference  you  obje8:  and  fay, 
"  Abraham's  children  after  the  flefh  were  not 
"  included  in  the  promife,  as  the  Poedobap- 
"  tift  of  our  day  would  have  theirs." 

We  have  already  anticipated  the  objec- 
tion.  but  are  not  unwilling  to  confider  it  more 
particularly. 

St.  Paul,  in  the  fourth  chapter  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  Speaking  of  the  honi  woman  and  of  the 
f>'eezooman^  and  of  their  children^  which  he  calls 
an  allegory^  fays,  "  Ahrahain  had  two  fons^  one 
'•  by  a  bondmaid^  and  the  other  by  a  free  zvoman; 
'•  and  he  who  was  of  the  bond  woman^  zcas  born  of 
"  ter  the  flejli''  But,  Sir,  how  does  this  alle- 
gorical reprefentation  prove,  that  the  chil- 
dren of  believing  parents  ^^  art  born  after  the 
flejh?''  If  the  Apoftle  had  reprefented  be- 
lievers, as  having  like  Iflima^l,  defcended 
from  Hagar,  your  conclufion  would  have 
been  perfe6lly  juft  ;  and  it  would  be  right  to 
reje6l  their  children,  as  the  Ifhmaelites  were- 
rcj^ed,  from  being  God's  covenant  people. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  what  will  become  of 
your  argument  againtt  infant  Bapiifm  ?  For 
we  are  told,  that  believers  are  not  children  of 
the  bond  woman^  but  of  the  free.  Sarah  is  the 
mother  of  us  rt//;,and  we  are  heirs  of  the  blef- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  ^1  . 

£ng,  even  as  Ifaac,  who  was  horn  of  promife^  and 
after  the  Spirit,  As  this  promife  extended  lo 
the  pofterity  of  Ifaac,  fo  it  extends  to  the 
children  of  beh'evers.  It  is  fpoken  of  as  be- 
ing a  pYQcious  birthright^  and  we  are  folcmn- 
ly  cautioned  not  to  defpife  and  fell  it,  as 
profane  Efau,  (he  fon  of  Ifaac,  did. 

In  the  language  of  prophecy,  which  is  ac- 
cording to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  Jacob 
and  his  pofterity  are  reprefented  as  having 
been  chofen  to  be  God's  covenant  people, 
and  Efau  and  his  pofterity,  as  having  been 
reje6lcd,  even  before  "  they  had  done  either 
"  good  or  evil."  All  things  are  knoivn  unto 
■God  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  He  fees 
intuitively  the  thoughts  and  hearts  of  men  afar 
off.  But  fiich  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  us. 
We  certainly  need  Tome  external,  vifible  rule, 
in  order  to  dire8:  our  judgment  and  our 
conduft.  It  is  abfolutely  neceffary  for  us, 
to  confider  the  covenant,  and  its  members, 
and  their  requifite  qualification,  and  mode 
of  initiation,  in  a  light  that  is  vifible  to  our 
finite  capacity. 

Accordingly,  Ifhmael  was  vifibly  in  cove-^ 
nant,  as  truly  as  Ifaac,  until  his  unbelief  ap- 
peared, and  he  was  caft  out,  for  mocking 
and  perfecuting  his  brother.  Efau  was  vifi- 
bly in  covenant,  as  truly  as  Jacob,  until  his 
unbelief  appeared,  and  he  was  reje6led  for 
defpifing  and  felling  his  birthright.  Thofe 
Ifraelites,  whofe  carcafes  fell  in  the  wilder- 
nefs,  were  vifibly   and    truly  in    covenant^ 


yS  AN    APOLOGY  FOR 

until  their  unbelief  appeared,  and  they  were 
rejeded  and  deftroyed  for  their  wickednefs. 
The  ten  tribes  were  truly  and  vifibly  in 
covenant,  until  they  became  unbelievers, 
<ind  were  reje6ied  for  their  revolt.  The 
Jews  were  alfo  truly  and  vifibly  in  covenant', 
until  broken  off  by  unbelief,  and  rejeQed 
for  their  perverfe  and  incorrigible  infidelity. 

Having  become  open  and  profefled  unbe- 
lievers, they  had  no  longer  any  right  to 
plead  that  faithful  Abraham  was  their  father, 
or  expeft  to  be  confidered  and  treated  as 
Ifraclites  and  children  of  the  covenant.  The 
Apoftle,  in  the  9th  chapter  to  the  Romans, 
informs  them,  "  that  all  are  not  IJraeU  who  art 
*'  of  If  rati ;  neither  hecaufc  they  are  the  feed  of 
''•  Abraham  are  they  all  children^  but  in  IfaacfJiall 
«'  thy  feed  be  called  :  that  is^  they  who  are  the 
^'  children  of  the  flefh^  thcfe  are  not  the  children 
*'  of  God.  but  the  children  of  the  promife  ar^ 
«'  counted  for  the  feed" 

Thus,  reafoning  from  analogy,  he  proves 
to  the  ujibelievi-ng  Jews,  that  their  fuppofed 
light  and  title  to  covenant  privileges  and 
final  falvation,  on  account  of  their  defcent 
from  Abraham,  were  wholly  without  founda- 
tion. 

Unbelieving  Iflimael,  who  is  reprefented 
as  being  born  after  the  flefh,  was  Abraham's 
fon  ;  but  the  promife  Vv'as  not  made  uncondi- 
tionally to  him  and  his  children,  but  to  be- 
lieving Ifaac  and  his  feed.  Efau  was  Ifaac's 
fon,  but  he  forfeited  his  birthright  and  lofl 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


78 


\he  bleffing.     He  and  his  defcendants  were 
therefore  rejeded. 

The  promife  is  made   to  believing  Jacob 
and  his  pofterity,  the  Ifraelites. 

Many  of  thefe  Ifraelites,  and  finally  the 
whole  Jewifh  nation,  like  Efau,  forfeited 
their  birthright  by  unbelief,  and  lofl  the 
blefling  of  being  God's  covenant  people. 
But  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  is  not  difan- 
nuUed ;  for  ••  heluvers  of  every  nation,  are 
^'  counted/or  hisfeed^  and  i  he  promise  isjlillwadc 
''  to  them  and  their  children'''  This  is  that 
covenant  which,  David  tells  us,  ^^God7'e- 
^'  members  forever ;  uchich  covenant,  he  made  u-ith 
"  Abraham  ;  and  his  oath  unto  Ifaac ;  and  con- 
^^  firmed  the  Jame  unto  Jacob  for  a  law  ;  and 
*^'  unto  Ifrael^for  an  tverlafiivg  covenant,"^ 
1  am.  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER      VIIL 

SIRy 


I 


TRUST  you  are  now  convinced  that  the 
Apoftle  did  not  mean  the  infant  offspring  of 
believing  parents,   by    ihofe    perfons,  whom 
he  ftyles,  «  Children  after  the  fcfii:'     He  evi- 
dently   had    reference    to     the    ULbeneving 
.      Jews;   v.ho.   although    they  defcended  from 
I     Ifrael^  were  not  true  Ifratlites ;   ihey  having, 
G 


74  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

like  mocking  IJlimad  and  profane  Efau^  forfeit- 
ed and  loft  their  birthright. 

Agreeably  to  our  Saviour's  prediQion, 
"  the  vineyard — the  kingdom  is  iaktnjrom  thttn^ 
'•  and  given  to  other  nations,''  Covenant  privi- 
leges are  transferred  to  the  believing  Gen- 
tiles. This  bleffing  now  belongs  to  them 
and  their  children.  It  is  their  rightful  in- 
heritance, for  they  are  heirs.^  even  as  Ifaac  and 
Jacoh.  Therefore^  fays  St.  VdiuX^  ^'^  ye  are  no 
'•  inor I  jlr angers  and  foreigners^  hut  fellow- citi- 
"  zens  with  the  faints,  and  of  the  hoifehcld  of 
<'  Gcdr 

By  faith  we  Gentiles   are  grafted  into  the 
Jame  olive  tree  from  which  the  Jewijli  nation  is 
broken  off  by  unbeliff 

This  covenant,  as  w^e  have  (hown,  has  been 
repeatedly  rene\ved.  enlarged  and  improved, 
as  to  its  privileges,  and  efpecially  under  the 
gofpel  difpenfaiion.  But  no  farther  im- 
provements are  to  be  expeBed.  The  iefla- 
tor  is  dead  ;  and  hath  fealed  it  ^vith  his 
blood. 

The  new  covenant,  or  teflainent.  as  it  is 
fometimes  called,  with  all  its  fpirituality  and 
perfeftion.  is  but  the  antitype  and  accom- 
pli fhment  of  the  old  teftament. 

The  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mofaic 
law,  or  «'  that  covenant  which  God  made 
"  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  when  he  took 
'•  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the 
'Mand  of  Egypt,"  is  repealed;  but  it  could 
not  make    void   the   Abrahamic   covenant. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  |        75 

either  when  annexed  to  it,  as  an  appendage, 
or  when  taken  from  it,  as  being  no  longer 
ulerul. 

The  covenant,  which  God  made  with 
Abraha  n,  and  which  he  fo  often  confirmed 
and  eftablifhed,  is  now  renewed  for  the  Uil 
time.  Accordini^  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah, 
it  is  now  piii  into  the  inward  parts  of  m  ait  kind  ^ 
a7id  written  in  their  heayts^  by  being  revealed 
and  addrelTed  (not  to  ihe  external  fen'es, 
and  \n  types  and  figures,  bui)  liberally,  to  the 
underiianding  and  confcience.  in  the  plainefl 
and  moft  dire6l  manner. 

To  this  covenant^  the  jews  once  belonged. 
From  this,  they  have  been  broken  off  by 
unbelief;  and  inio  tki^^  the  Gentiles  are  now 
grafted  by  faith. 

What  other  condruQion  can  you  poflibly 
put,  upon  that  beautiful  and  infirutlive  alle- 
gory, m^nuoned  by  St.  Paul  ?  I  mean  the 
olive  tree.  Could  he  intend  that  old  cove- 
nant of  Moles,  which  you  fay  is  abolifhed? 
It  is  impoffihle.  The  believing  Gentiles  are 
not  grafted  into  a  tree  which  is  decayed  and 
dead  ;  but  into  a  living  and  flourifhing  tree  : 
And  yet  it  is  the  very  fa7iie  tree^  and  very 
fame  y?ocy^,  from  which  the  Jews  were  broken 
0%  and  into  which  they  will  be  again  in- 
grafted as  a  people. 

It  is  not  intimated  that  every  natural: 
branch  was  broken  oflP.  Some  remained  as 
they  originally   were  ;  and  the  Gentiles  are 


76  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

grafted  in  among  them,  and  mutually  partake 
of  the  root  andfatnefs  of  the  olive. 

A  tree  which  is  alive,  and  has  roots,  and 
branches,  and  fatnefs,  could  not  be  fubfti- 
tuted  as  a  figure,  to  reprefent  a  covenant, 
that  had  been  worn  oat  with  age,  or  was 
ready  to  vaniJJi  away. 

Perhaps  you  would  rather  choofe  to  fup- 
pofe  that  this  olive  tree  was  intended  to  re- 
prefent the  new  and  gofp.el  covenant,  which 
is  everlafling.  But,  Sir,  this  fuppofition  is 
equally  unfavourable  to  your  fcheme  ;  for 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  according  to  your 
opinion,,  never  did  belong  to  this  new  cove- 
nant, and  it  is  abfolutely  inipofifible  that  a 
people  fhould  have  been  broken  off  from  a 
covenant  to  which  they  did  not  belong  ;  and 
equally  impoffible  for  the  Gentiles  to  be 
grafted  in  as  fcions,  before  (locks  were  pre- 
pared, by  cutting  or  breaking  off  the  natural 
branches. 

Thus  the  Apoftle  has  provided  with  pe-. 
culiar  caution,  againfl  every  fpecies  of  rnif- 
reprefentation.  The  olive  tre&  cannot  fig- 
nify  an  old,  abolifhed  covenant,  into  which 
the  believing  Gentiles  never  were  ingrafted  ; 
nor  a  new  and  gofpel  covenant,  to  which 
the  unbelieving  Jews  never  did  belong,  and 
from  which  of  courfe,  they  could  not  have 
been  broken  off.  It  mull  therefoie  repre- 
fent the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  has 
been  fubftantially  the  fame  in  every  fucceed- 
ing  age;  from   the   days    of  Abraham  until 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  77 

til e  days  of  Chrift;  and  from  the  days  of 
Chrift,  until  the  prefent  time  ;  and  will  re- 
main  the  fame,  fo  long  as  the  fun  and  moon 
flidll  endure. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  fuppofin^  that 
the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off  from 
this  covenant ;  and  that  the  believing  Gen- 
tile^ were  grafted  into  the  fame  (lock. 

This  fuppofition  is  intelligible  and  con- 
fident, and  it  is  the  only  intelligible  and 
confiflent  one,  that  can  be  made. 

It  is  the  external,  appointed  feal  or  token, 
which  principally  conftitutes  the  regular 
publicity  or  vifibility  of  a  covenant — the 
vifibility  of  memberfhip,  and  the  vifibility 
of  initiation.  And  as  this  public,  vifible  feal, 
or  token,  was  firft  given  and  affixed  to  Abra- 
ham, it  has  commonly  been  called  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant ;  and  he  has  been  denomi- 
nated in  fcripture,  "  the  father  of  many  na^ 
"  tions^  and  the  father  of  them  who  believe.'' 

Before  we  leave  this  olive  tree,  let  us  turn 
our  thoughts,  for  a  moment,  to  the  final 
reftauration  of  the  Jewifh  nation.  The  Apof- 
tie  tells  us,  •*  that  if  they  abide  n-t  in  unbelief 
"  they  fhall  be  grafted  in  (a^^ain  ;j  for  God  is 
^'  able  to  graft  thein  in  again'' 

Their  remarkable  reje61ion,  and  miracu- 
lous preferv^tion  have  ailonifhed  the  world, 
and  afford  reafon  to  expeQ  that  they  will  be 
reftored  to  their  native  country,  and  to  their 
original  Handing  -in  covenant  privileges. 
Thofe  individuals,  who  exilied  in  the  days  of 
G  2 


7$  AN    APOLOCY    FOR 

St.  Paul,  have  been  dead  for  many  ages. 
They  never  can  be  re  ingrafted.  But  the 
nation  lives;  and  as  the  nation  has  been  re- 
je6led  ;  fo  the  nation  will  be  reftored — will 
be  agai7i  grafted  into  its  own  olive  tree. 

This  wonderful,  national  reftauration  will 
prove  an  unfpeakable  blefling  to  other  na- 
tions. "  For  if  the  cajling  azvay  of  thm  he  the 
*'  reconciling  of  the  worlds  what  fhall  the  receiving 
"  of  them  be,  but  lifefroyn  the  dead  ?"'  "In  that 
*'  day,  we  are  told  by  the  prophet,  many  na- 
"  tionB  fhall  be  joined  to  the  Lord ;  and  the 
''  kingdoms  of  this  world  become  the  king- 
s' doms  of  God  and  of  his  Chrift."  But,  Sir, 
how  can  nations  and  kingdoms  be  joined  in 
covenant  to  the  Lord,  or  belong  to  Chrift's 
vifible  kingdom,  unlefs  children  are  admitted 
with  their  believing  parents  ?  For  children 
conftitute  a  very  great  proportion  of  every 
nation  and  kingdom.  It  is  impoffible  for 
the  Jews  as  a  nation,  to  be  again  ingrafted 
into  their  ov/n  olive  tree,  fo  long  as  their 
children  are  excluded.  The  children  of  this 
nation  were  originally  included  with  their 
parents,  in  the  vifible  covenant.  When  the 
parents  became  profeffed  unbelievers,  they 
and  their  children  were  broken  off  from  the 
covenant;  and  it  is  abfolutely  necefTary,  in 
order  to  a  national  reflauration,  that  both 
parents  and  children  fhould  be  reinftated. 
Thefe  important  truths  are  clearly  revealed; 
and  the  very  reafon  alfo  mentioned,  upon 
which  they  are  founded.     We  are  exprcfsly 


IMF  ANT    BAPTlSiNf.  79 

informed,  that  *^  the  Jews  are  beloved  for  the 
^' father  s  fake  :  And  f  the  firfi  fruit  he  holy^the 
**  lump  is  alfoholy ;  and  if  the  root  he  holy/fo  are 
"  the  hranches.'' 

To  me  it  feems  impofTi'ole  to  evade  the 
Apoftle's  meaning.  His  argument  is  cau- 
tioufly  co.iftruQed  in  the  form  of  a  dilemma^^ 
which,  like  the  cherubim  and  flaming  fn. or dy 
turns  every  way,  to  guard  the  tree  of  life. 
I  am.  Sir,  &g. 


I 


LETTER     IX, 
SIR, 


T  evidently  appears,  from  the  foregoing 
arguments  and  remarks,  that  the  Chriilian 
or  Gofpel  Covenant  is  the  very  fame  cove- 
nant which  God  formerly  made  and  eftab- 
Hfhed  with  Abraham  and  his  Iced, 

From  this  covenant,  the  natural  defcen- 
dents  of  Abraham  are  broken  off  by  unbelief ; 
but  he  being  conftituted  the  Father  of  the?n 
who  believe,  believing  Gentiles  are  now  in- 
grafted, and  counted  for  his  feed,  even  as  Ifaac  ; 
and  confequently,  their  infant  children  have 
the  fame  right  of  being  vifibly  initiated  into 
the  vifible  covenant  by  Baptifm,  the  prefent 
appointed  token,  which  the  children  of  Ifaac 
had,  of  being  admitted  by  circumcifion,  the 
former  token  of  this  covenant. 


%0  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

It  is  worthy  your  particular  notice,  that 
thefe  infant  children  are  not  lo  be  baptized, 
as  being,  them/elves,  the  feed  of  Abraha??i,  but 
as  being  the  children  or  property  of  believing 
pare/its^  who  are  counted  for  his  feed.  Efau 
and  Jacob  were  not  circumcifed,  as  being 
the  feed  of  Abraham,  but  as  being  the  chil- 
dren of  believing  Jfaac^  who  inherited  the 
promifes. 

This  ancient  privilege  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  flill  belongs  to  the  children  of  be- 
lievers, as  their  birthright.  It  has  never 
been  revoked,  but  frequently  confirmed  in 
the  mod  explicit  manner. 

I  will  readily  agree  with  you,  that  infant 
Baptifm  has  fometimes  been  grofsly  abufed, 
and  efpecially  in  former  ages,  by  perfons  of 
a  fuperftiiious  and  fanatic  temper  of  mind. 
They  have  confidered  and  treated  it  as  an= 
diffdir  o[  infinite  importance — as  abfolutely  ef- 
feniial  to  falvation.  We  are  naturally  fhock- 
ed  with  the  monftrous  abfurdity,  and  even 
impiety  of  fuch  condu8;;  and  in  the  tranf- 
ports  of  our  indignation,  are  apt  to  hur-ry  a- 
way  into  the  oppofite  extreme. 

But,  Sir,  ihe  Baptifts  have  not  been  always 
free  from  fuperfHtion  and  enthufiafm.  Too 
much  fhefs  has  fometimes  been  laid  upon 
adult  Baptifm.  and  the  mode  of  Baptizing. 
It  was  once  thought  neccffary  by  fome,  that 
the  perfons  baptized  fliould  be  dipped  three 
times,  and  wi:h  their  bodies  almoft,  or  en- 
tirely naked. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  8l 

Abufes,  of  every  kind,  fhould  be  corre6l- 
ed,  but  ought  never  to  be  mentioned  as  an 
objeclion  or  argument,  either  ag^inft  the 
mode  or  fubjeQs  of  Baptifm.  You  might, 
M^iih  as  much  propriety,  argue  againft  the 
pra8ice  of  eating  and  drinking,  becaufe  fome 
men  are  gluttons  and  drunkards;  or  even 
againft  the  chriftian  religion,  (as  infidels  do) 
becaufe  fome  chriftians^  in  their  intemperate 
and  bigotted  zeal  for  extending  and  purify- 
ing the  church,  have  enflaved  and  facrificed: 
millions  of  their  fellow-creatures. 

There  is  no  blefling — no  religious  privi- 
lege or  inftitution,  but  what  has,  in  fome  in- 
ftances,  been  abufed.  We  ought  to  correft 
abufes  of  every  kind,  and  carefully  guard 
againft  them  ;  but  they  afford  no  reafon  why 
we  fhould  objeB  to  an  ordinance  of  God,  or 
treat  it  with  indifference  and  negleft. 

Infant  Baptifm  is  a  facred  dedication  oF 
little  children  to  God,  the  fupreme  and  uni- 
verfal  Parent.  The  fervice  is  natural,  and 
rational,  and  religious.  It  is  a  duty,  in  its. 
very  nature,  as  fuitable  and  proper,  as  pray- 
er to  God  in  behalf  of  our  children.  The 
pious  father  and  mother,  while  their  hearts 
are  warm  with  gratitude,  and  a  fenfe  of  their 
obligation,  feel  difpofed  to  acknowledge^, 
publicly,  the  divine  goodnefs ;  and  dedicate,, 
publicly,  their  infant  child  to  God  ;  and  bind 
themfelves,  publicly,  by  folemn  vows,  to  ed- 
ucate (heir  child  in  a  religious  manner.. 


02  AN    APOLOGY    TOR 

This  folemn  tranfaflion  undoubtedly  tends 
to  incline  the  devout  parents,  if  their  child 
fhould  be  taken  away  by  death,  to  refign  it 
with  more  cheerfulnefs ;  and  if  the  life  of 
their  child  fhould  be  fpared,  to  train  it  up  with 
greater  care  and  diligence,  in  the  ways  of 
religion  and  virtue.  It  will  alfo  tend  to  ex« 
cite  fuiiable  thoughts  and  feniiments  in  the 
young  and  tender  mind  of  their  child,  when 
it  fliail  become  capable  of  refledion  and 
confideration. 

And  now,  Sir,  if  any  doubts  remain,  ref- 
pe8;ing  the  qualification  of  children  for  be- 
ing thus  religioufly  dedicated  to  God  in  Bap- 
lifrr),  I  muft  refer  you  to  their  profefTed 
Friend  and  Patron,  Jefus  Chrift.  "  Have 
*'  you  never  read,"  fays  he,  "  that  out  of  the 
'•  mouth  of  babes  and  fucklings,  thou  haft 
''  perfe8ed  praife  ?"  Jefus,  we  are  told,  cal- 
led a  iinle  child  unto  him,  and  fet  him  in  the 
midft  of  them,  and  faid  ;  "  verily  I  fay  unto 
'•  you,  except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as 
"  Utile  childj-en^  ye  fhall  not  enter  into  the 
''  kingdom  of  heaven." — "  Whofoever  there- 
•'  fore  fhall  humble  himfelf  as  this  little  child,  the 
^'  fame  is  greatcjl  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
''  and  whofo  fhall  receive  one  fuch  little 
''  one,  in  my  name,  receiveth  me  ;  and  who<- 
'*  fo  fliall  offend  one  of  thefe  little  ones,  who 
*'  believe  in  me  (ton  pifteuonton,  of  thofe 
"  (parents)  who  believe  in  me)  it  were  bet- 
"  ter  for  him  that  a  mill  flone  were  hanged 
'*■  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  v;ere  drowned. 


INFANT     BAPTISM. 


83 


<«  in  the  depth  of  the  fea."  "  Take  heed  that 
*'  ye  defpife  not  one  of  thefe  liule  ones,  for  I 
'•  fay  unto  you  that  in  heaven  their  angels 
*'  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  father." 

"  And  they  brought  unto  him  young  chil- 
<«  dren" — St.  Maik  calls  tjiem  little  chiidrcij, 
and  St.  Luke  calls  them  infants^  '^  that  he 
*«  fhould  touch  them — that  he  fhould  lay  his 
"hands  on  them  and  pray;  and  his  difci- 
"  pies  rebuked  thofe  that  brought  them  ; 
"  but  when  jefus  faw  it,  he  was  much  difpkaf- 
"  ed^  and  faid  unto  \.\-\tm.  fiiffer  little  children 
«'  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for 
*'  of  fitch  is  the  kingdom  of  God ;  verily  1  fay 
"  unto  yoU)  whofoever  (hall  not  receive  the 
"  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  little  child,  fhall  not 
*'  enter  therein." 

1  cannot  find  that  our  Saviour  ever  fiyled 
thefe  little  children  "  Chriftlefs,"  or  that  he 
reprefented  them  as  unfit  for  his  covenant 
or  kingdom.  But  being  a  tender  faithful 
Shepherd,  his  watchful  care  extended  to 
every  part  of  the  flock.  As  the  prophet  had 
foretold,  "  he  gathered  the  Imnhi  \i\i\\  his  ar^ns 
*'  and  carried  them  in  his  ho/cm"  And  after  his 
refurreftion  from  the  dead,  he  exprefsly 
commanded  Peter,  in  prefence  of  the  other 
Apoflles,   to  feed  hisflieep  and  feed  his  lambs. 

And,  would  not  thefe  Apoftles,  in  their 
cy-cumftances,  very  naturally  fuppofe,  that  it 
was  the  intention  of  Chrift,  that  the  infant 
children  of  believers  fhould  be  admitted,  to- 
gether with    their  parent*,  into    his  vilible 


.  / 


•?2(  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

kingdom?  And  would  they  not  confidet 
themfelves,  as  authorized,  by  their  comroir- 
fion,  to  apply  the  difcriminating  token  ?  Let 
us  not  forget  that  thefe  Apoftles  were  Jews- 
were  men  who  had  been  educated  in  the 
knowledge  of  that  covenant,  which  God 
made  with  Abraham,  and  believed  it  was 
ftill  in  full  force.  They  knew  that  infants 
had  always  been  admitted  with  their  believ- 
ing parents,  into  covenant,  and  viewed  this 
as  an  unfpeakable  privilege.  They  knew  that 
the  Gentiles  were  now  abouttobe  grafted  into 
the  fame  olive  tree  ;  and  be  received  as  ^^  fel- 
"  low-heirs^  and  of  the  fame  body,  and  partakers 
"  of  his  promife  in  Chri/l  by  the  GofpeL'' — They 
knew  it  had  been  the  conftant  and  immemo- 
rial praftice  of  the  Jewifh  nation,  to  baptize 
thofe  Gentiles  v;ho  were  profelyted  to  their 
religion;  and  that  they  baptized  the  infant 
children,  males  and  females,  together  with 
their  believing  parents;  and  that  thefe  in- 
fants, as  well  as  the  adults,  were  called  profe- 
lytes. — They  had  often  feen  infant  children 
dedicated  to  God  in  the  temple,  and  by  his 
own  appointment.- — They  had  very  frequent- 
ly heard  their  Divine  Mafter  exprefs  the 
moft  kind  and  charitable  regard  for  little 
children. — They  were  prefent,  when  infant 
children  were  brought,  in  the  arms  of  their 
believing  parents,  to  Chrift,  for  his  prayers 
and  bkfTing;  and  when  he  took  them  into 
his  own  arms  and  bleffed  them,  declaring  in 
the  mod  folemn  and  publick  manner,  thai  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  85 

fuch  his  kingdom  conffed. — The  Apoftles  well 
remembered  how  much  their  Lord  was  dif. 
pleafed,  and  how  feverelyhe  reproved  them, 
for  attempting  to  prevent  thefe  religious 
parents  from  doing  their  duty  in  this  ref- 
pe6l. 

During   the   miniftration  of  Jefus  Chrift, 
their  apoftolic  fervices  had  been  confined  to 
the  Jtwijli  nation  ;    but  they  were  now  com- 
manded to  difciple  or  profdyte  all  nations^  hap- 
tizing  them,    ^c.     The  duties  of  their   com- 
miffion  were    expreffed   in  the   moft  concife 
and  general  terms.     There  w^as  no  mention 
or  exception  made,  of  men,  women  or  chil- 
dren.    They  would  therefore  have  fuppofed 
that   perfons    of  thefe    feveral    defcriptions 
were  included,  as   had  always  been  the  cafe 
under  former  difpenfations. — A  profefTion  of 
faith  and  repentance  had  been    required   of 
adult  Gentile  profelytes,  in  order  to  circum- 
ciGon   and  baptifm,   and  is  ftill  required  of 
adults,  as  equally  neceifary  in  order  to  Bap- 
tifm under  the  Gofpel  of  Chrift.     The  inca- 
pacity of   infant  children  to  believe,    or   to 
profefs  their  faith,  did  not  difqualify  and  pre- 
clude them  from  receiving  the  token  of  the 
covenant,   under  former  difpenfations — and 
why  fliould  the  Apoftles    fuppofe   them,   on 
this  account,  difqualined  and  precluded  un- 
der the  Gofpei  in^itution  ?  IF  Chrift  had  in- 
terided  that  infants  fbould  net  have  been  bap- 
tized, he  would  undoubtedly  have  mention- 
ed exprefslv  hi?  intention.   But  the  Apoftles 
H 


86  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

were  not  prohibited;  infants  were  not  ex- 
cepted  in  their  commiffion.  They  would 
therefore  have  naturally  and  Heceffarily  fup- 
pofed  them  included. 

We  have  no  dire8:  evidence,  or  even  in- 
timation, that  the  iVpoftles  refufed,  or  neg- 
le61ed  to  baptize  infants.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  there  appears  to  be  the  ftrongeft  prob- 
ability, if  not  abfolute  certainty,  from  a  great 
variety  of  fubftantial  reafons  and  convincing 
circumdances,  that  they  did  adminifter  Bap- 
tifm  to  the  infant  children  of  believers. 

Thofe  adult  perfons,  who  believed  and 
profeffed  their  faith,  were  baptized.  The 
Jailer^  and  Stephamts^  and  Lydia^  believed  and 
were  baptized.  We  are  exprefsly  informed, 
that  iheir  houfeholds  were  alfo  baptized  ;  but 
it  is  not  faid,  nor  even  intimated,  that  they 
believed,  or  exhibited  any  profcflion  of  faith 
or  repentance.  The  very  manner,  in  which 
the  ftory  of  their  Bapiifm  is  related,  fhows 
plainly  that  they  were  baptized  on  the  ac- 
count of  their  believing  parents. 

There  is  certainly  a  vaft  difference  in  the 
genius  and  temper  of  children,  even  from 
their  early  infancy.  We  cannot  tell  what 
influence  is  afforded  them  by  the  divine  Spi- 
rit, or  how  he  operates,  in  forming  their 
young  and  tender  minds  to  virtue,  and  in 
preparing  them  for  future  ufefulnefs.  It  is, 
however,  evident,  that  many  are  fan6lified 
while  infants.  Thus  it  was  with  many  of  the 
ancient  prophets  and  primitive  faints.     We 


INFANTBAPTISM.  87 

are  told  that  the  "  Prophet  Ifaiah^  was  called 
"  and  fonntd  from  the  womb,  to  be  a  peculiar 
"  meffenger  of  heaven,  to  inftruQ  and  re- 
"  claim  the  people."  Concerning  Jeremiah, 
it  is  faid,  '•  Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  hell)\  I 
'•  knew  thee  ;  and  before  thou  came  ft  forth  out  of 
"  the  womb,  J  fanElifitd  thee,  and  ordained  thee  a 
^  prophet  unto  the  ratmis.''  St.  Luke  informs 
us,  "  That  John,  the  Forerunner  of  Chrift,  uas 
^^ filed  with  the  Holy  Ghoft^  from  his  mothers 
"  womb.''  St.  Paul  tells  us.  that  Timothy  in- 
herited the  "  Faith  that  fi^fi  d  celt  in  his  grcnd- 
^'  mothn'  Lois  and  innther  Eunice  "  Bei r.g  dc-f- 
cended  from  pious  anceflors,  he  was  reiiJ- 
iouQy  educated  ;  aiid  '*  knew  even  from  a 
*•  child  the  facred  fcripiurcf,  wiiich  were  a- 
''  b!e  to  make  him  wife  to  fa'vaiion,  through 
*'  faith  that  is  in  Jcfus  ChiiR." 

When  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  advent 
drew  nigh,  the  firft  perfon  who  exulted  at 
his  approaching  nativity,  was  an  unborn  in- 
fant. Little  infants  were  the  fir{>  who  fuller- 
ed martyrdom  on  his  account. — The  barba- 
rous Herod  facrificed  ihoufands— ^' ^// ^Ae 
''  children  in  Bethlehem^  under  the  age  of 
<^  two  years."  Young  cliildren  were  the  firil 
who  fang  hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David,  blejfed 
is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
hofanna  in  the  highef.''  «'  It  was  predicted, 
"  that  his  praifes  ihould  ht  perfected  by  the 
«'  mouth  of  babes  and  fucklings."  No  won- 
der that  the  Saviour  fl}ould  feel  a  very  fpe- 
cial  regard  for  infants — for  little  children  ;.— > 


88  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

that  he  fhould  provide  for  them  a  place  in 
his  gracious  covenant; — that  he  fhoiild  or- 
der their  names  to  be  enrolled,  and  Baptifm^ 
the  appointed  token  ofadmiffion,  to  be  affix- 
ed ;  hereby  binding  their  parents  by  a  pub- 
lick  and  lolemn  engagement,  to  difcipline 
and  train  them  up  for  him,  as  his  difciples  or 
fcholars,  regularly  initiated  into  his  vifible 
kingdom  and  fchool,  for  the  fake  of  religious 
inllruQion  and  education. 

Solomon  fays,  "  train  up  a  child  in  the  way 
'*'*  he  fliould  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  fhall  not 
'•  depart  from  it."  One  great  and  leading  de- 
^'^gn^  in  the  appointment  of  infant  circumci- 
fion,  and  of  infant  Baptifm,  was  to  fecure, 
fo  far  as  is  poffible,  the  religious  education  of 
children.  The  faithful  and  exemplary  char- 
acter of  Abraham,  as  the  head  of  a  numerous 
family,  was  a  principal  reafon,  why  he  was 
fo  remarkably  diftinguifhed. — ''  I  know  him-, 
i*  lays  God^  that  he  will  command  his  children 
''  and  his  hovfthold  after  him,  and  they  fhall 
"  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  juflice  and 
"judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  biing  upon 
*•  Abraham,  that  which  he  hath  fpoken  of 
"  him." 

By  devoting  our  infant  children  to  God — 
to  Chrift,  we  are  reminded  that  they  belong 
to  him — that  they  are  his  by  creation,  and 
by  redemption,  and  by  dedication — that  he 
actually  claims  them  as  his  peculiar  proper- 
ty, and  exprefsly  requires  us  to  inftrud  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  89 

educate  them  in  the  ways   of  religion  and 
virtue. 

In  order  to  accomplifh  this  important  pur- 
pofe,  the  Ifraelites  were  commanded  to  em- 
brace ail  fuitable  occafions,  and  to  adopt 
every  proper  method.  "  Hear,  O  Ifrael; 
"  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  ;  and  thou 
*'  (halt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  wiih  all  thine 
*'  heart,  and  with  all  thy  foul,  and  with  all 
*'  thy  might.  And  thefe  words,  which  I 
*'  command  thee  this  day,  (hall  be  in  thine 
*'  heart.  And  thou  Jlialt  teach  them  diligently  to 
*'  thy  children,  and  Jlialt  talk  of  them  zvh  n  thou 
'^  Jittejl  in  thine  houfe.  and  when  thou  walkejl  by 
"  the  xuay^  and  when  thou  liejl  down,  and  when 
''  thou  rijeft  up.  And  thou  [halt  hind  them  as  a 
^^  Jign  upon  thine  hand,  and  they  JJi  all  he  as  front- 
'•  lets  between  thine  eyes.  And  thou  /halt  write 
'*  them  upon  the  pofis  cf  thine  houfc^  and  en  t'y 
««  gales." 

We  are  apt  to  negle8:  ihi^  important  d-ity 
until  it  is  too  late.  But  infant  Bapiifm  teach- 
es us,  that  children  are  the  proper  obj?6h  of 
our  religious  care  and  auention  as  loon  as 
born — that  we  ought  without  delay  to  pray 
for  them,  and  dedicate  them  to  God,  and 
whenever  they  are  capable  of  being  inftruft- 
ed,  afford  (hem  all  necefTary  and  ufeful  in- 
ftru6tion. — The  prophet  lldiah  enquires  thus. 
*'  whom  JJiall  we  teach  knon  ledge  ?  and  whom 
^^ Jhall  we  make  to  underfland  dcElrine  F'  And 
anfwers,  "  thern  that  are  weaned  from  the  milk 
*'  and  drawn  from  the  hrecfls.  For  line  mifl  be 
II  2 


9©  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  Upon  line^  line  upon  line  ;  precept  upon  precept^ 
"  precept  upon  precept ;  here  a  little  and  there  a 
«  littler 

David  tells  us  that  God  «  efiabliJJied  a  tejli- 
*'  mony  in  Jacob  and  appointed  a  law  in  Ifracl^ 
"  which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  Jhouli, 
''  make  them  known  to  their  children  ;  that  the 
"  generation  to  come  might  know  them^  even  the 
"  children  which  JJiould  be  born  ;  whoJJwuld  arife 
*^  and  declare  them  to  their  children ;  that  they 
"  might  fet  their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the 
"  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  command^nents.'' 

The  great  Jehovah  claims  a  fpecial  right 
in  the  children  of  thofe  parents  who  have 
devoted  and  given  up  themfelves  to  him,  ac- 
cording to  the  tenor  of  his  gracious  cove- 
nant. "  In  the  fcriptures,  God  ftyles  them 
"  7ny  children" — "  Children  whom  thou  hajl  born 
*«  unto  meJ"  "  Thty  are  denominated  the 
«'  heritage  of  the  Lord.''  "  All  fouls,''  fays  God^ 
"  are  mine,  as  the  foul  of  the  father,  fo  alfo  the 
^^  foul  of  the  fon  is  mine,"  And  the  Saviour 
exprefsly  commands  us,  "  to  render  unto  God 
"  the  thincrs  which  are  Gods"  How  natural, 
and  how  reafonable  is  it  then,  for  us  to  dedi- 
cate ourfelves  and  our  children  to  him. 
The  dedication  of  ourfelves  is  firft,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  and  of  propriety.  We  are 
told  that  "  God  had  rtfpeB  unto  Abtl,  and  then 
'*  unto  his  offering" 

One  principal  thing  implied  in  Baptifm,  is 
the  dedication  of  the  perfon  baptized,  to  God 
the  Father^  Son^  and  Holy  Giioft,     Every  aduh 


IN  RANT    BAPTISM.  ^f 

perfon  to  whom  the  gofpel  or  covenant  of 
grace  is  published  and  offered,  is  under  obli- 
gations to  fubfcribe  with  his  own  hand  to  the 
Lord. — He  is  required  to  dedicate  himfelf 
fincerely  and  truly  to  God,  and  to  his 
fervice.  And  as  children  are,  in  fome  fenfe, 
the  peculiar  property^  and  even  a  part  of 
parents,  it  is  alfo  equally  proper,  and  their 
incumbent  dutyy  to  dedicate  them  to  God  in 
the  way  and  method  of  his  appointment. 
The  praQice  has  been  clearly  authorized, 
by  the  unrevoked  mandate  of  heaven,  and 
by  the  approved  example  of  pious  parents. 

In  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  God 
exprefsly  required,  that  every  male  child,, 
when  eight  days  old^  fliouldhe  circwnciftd.  Cir- 
cumcifionwas  a  religious  dedication  of  thefe 
little  children  to  God  ;  on  which  occafion,  a 
form  of  folemn  and  appropriate  words  was 
ufed  and  prayers  were  offered  up  to  him  in 
their  behalf. 

The  Ifraelites  were  alfo  commanded  to 
J<inBiJy  and  dedicate  ihtu  Jirjl  bom  to  God; 
In  conformity  to  this  law,  the  holy  Child  Jefus^ 
was  prtjenttd  hy  his  parents  to  the  Lord  in  hii 
temple.  The  pious  moiher  of  Samuel  dedi- 
cated her  infant  fon  to  God,  and  purfuant 
to  her  vow,  as  foon  as  he  was  weaned,  flie 
left  him  to  ferve  in  the  temple,  under  the 
tuition  and  diredion  of  Ely  the  high  prieft. 

We  find  the  moiher  of  King  Lemuel^ 
mentioned  in  the  laft  chapter  of  the  Proverbs 
of  Solomon,  as  remonftracing  with  the  fon  of 


92 


AN    APOLO«Y   FOR 


her  vo^MS.  "  What  my/on  ?  And  what  the  Jon 
<'  of  my  womb  ?  And  what  the  Jon  of  my  vows  ? 
*'  Give  not  thy  Jlrength  to  women,  nor  thy  ways  to 
*'  that  which  dejlrcyeth  kings.  It  is  not  for 
*'  kingSi  0  Lemuel^  it  is  not  for  kings,  to  drink 
''  wine,  nor  princes  frong  drink  ;  left  they  drink, 
''  and  forget  the  law,  and  pervert  the  judgment  of 
*'  the  ajliaed" 

Although  the  Levites  were  not  allowed  to 
officiate  until  twenty-five  years  old,  they 
were  fet  apart  and  devoted  to  the  fervice  of 
the  fanQuary  from  their  earlieft  infancy. 
The  Korathites  were  a  particular  order  of  the 
Levites,  and  fet  apart  to  be  keepers  of  the 
charge  of  the  fanBuary,  This  appointment  to 
office  included  their  pofterity.  Infants,  al- 
though incapable  of  officiating,  were  dif- 
criminated  by  the  fame  title.  They  were 
called  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  fanBuary ;  as 
we  read  in  Numb.  iii.  28.  "  In  the  number  of 
*'  all  the  males,  from  a  month  old  and  upward, 
<*  were  eight  thoufand  fix  hundred,  keeping  the 
"  charge  of  the  fanBuary,"  To  this  employ- 
inent  they  were  devoted,  and  confecrated, 
when  but  one  month  old. 

Little  children  in  general  were  dedicated 
to  God,  and  admitted  into  covenant  v/ith 
h'im;  as  we  find  in  Dcut.  xxix.  1O5  11,  12. 
«  Ye  (land  this  day.  all  of  you,  before  the 
"  Lord  your  God  ;  the  captains  of  your 
"  tribes,  your  elders,  your  officers,  with  all 
"  the  men  of  Ifrael,  your  little  ones,  your  wives, 
*'  and  the  ftranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  thai 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  g^ 

**  thou  fhouldft  enter  into  covenant  with  the 
"  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  which  the 
"  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day." 

In  the  language  of  the  old  teftament,  you 
clearly  fee,  that  infant  children^  and  little  ones, 
are  faid  to  be  keepers  oj  the  JanBuary  ;  and  to 
be  entered  into  covenant  with  God.  Now,  a 
covenanter,  a  profelyte,  and  a  difciple,  are 
words,  according  to  cuftomary  ufage,  of  the 
fame  fignificafion.  Thefe  obfervations  ferve 
to  illacidate  the  fubjeft  under  confideration, 
and  plainly  teach  us  in  what  manner  the 
Apoftles  underftood  their  commiffion. 

When  fent  forth  to  teach,  or  make  difciples 
£/"^// nations  (as  you  juftly  acknowledge  the 
original  word  fignifies)  they  would  certainly 
fuppofe,  that  by  the  general  term,  ail  nations^^ 
Chrift  meant  to  include  perfons  of  both 
fexes,  and  of  all  ages — that  he  meant  to  in- 
clude infants,  among  the  number  of  his  dif- 
ciples^ as  had  always  been  the  praBice  under 
former  difpenfations.  This  is  evident  from 
his  own  exprefs  declarations,  with  rerpe6l  to 
infants,  on  other  occafions ;  for  he  declared 
that  they  belonged  to  his  kingdom.  We  are  told, 
that  he  took  a  child  and  fet  him  in  the  miifl  of 
them  ;  and  uhen  he  had  taken  him  into  his  arms^ 
hefaid^  whofoever  ffiall  receive  this  child,  in  my 
naine — as  belonging  to  me  ;  or  as  it  is  ex- 
prefledby  St.  Mark,  whofoever fhall  receive  one 
of  fuch  children^  in  my  name^  receiveth  m€y  and 
whofoever  receiveth  me^  receiveth  him  that  fent 
7^»     Now,   to  receive  a  perfon,   wbeiher  ^ 


^4  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

dult  or  infant,  in  the  name  of  Chrijl^  is  to  re- 
ceive him  as  his  difciple^  as  belonging  to  hirn^ 
as  being  a  fcholar,  or  member  of  that  king- 
dom— of  that  fchool,  over  which  he  is  the 
head — the  Lord  and  Mafler.  Thus  the  Sa- 
viour has  explained  thefe  very  words,  ufing 
them  with  particular  reference  to  his  Apof- 
tles,  as  in  Mark  ix,  41.  '•  For  whofoever 
*'  fhali  give  to  you  sl  cup  of  water  to  drink, 
*'  in  my  name^  becaufe  ye  belong  to  Chrijl^ 
'^  verily  I  fay  unto  you,  he  fhali  not  lofe  his 
''  reward."  And  alfo,  when  he  fent  them 
forth,  two  and  two,  before  his  crucifixion,  to 
preach  the  gofpel,  we  find  the  fame  expref- 
fion,  as  it  is  in  Matthew  x,  40,  42.  "  He  that 
''  receiveth  you  receiveth  w^,  a7id  he  that  receiveth 
"  me  receiveth  him  that  fent  me,''  "And  who- 
^*  foever  fhali  give  to  drink,  unto  one  of  thefe 
"  little  ones,  a  cup  of  cold  water  only,  in  the 
*'  name  of  a  difciple^  verily  I  fay  unto  you,  he 
*'  fhali  not  lofe  his  reward." 

This  child  was  a  little  one ;  fo  finall  that 
Chrifl  took  him  into  his  arms,  but  yet  he  was 
a  real  difciple — a  member  of  his  kingdom. 
The  foul  of  an  infant  is  as  precious  as  the 
foul  of  an  adult  perfon.  The  Saviour  there- 
fore makes  no  diftinBion  between  his  infant. 
and  his  adult  difciples.  Hejwho  receiveth  an 
infant,  and  he  who  receiveth  an  Apojlle,  in  the 
name  of  Chrifl — in  the  name  of  a  dfciple — as  be- 
longing to  Chrifl,  receiveth  Chrift  ;  and  he  zuho 
receiveth  Chrifi  receiveth  the  Father  who  fent  him. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  95 

The  Greek  word  Mathetes,  which  is  tranf- 
lated  a  difcipk^  is  derived  from  manthano, 
which  (ignifies  to  learn,  A  difcipk  and  ^fchol- 
ar^  are  convertible  terms — words  of  the  fame 
meaning.  Adult  perfons,  who  wifh  to  be 
the  fcholars  of  a  particular  mafter,  put  them- 
felves  under  his  tuition  ;  but  little  children 
are  commonly  placed,  by  their  parents,  un- 
der the  care  of  fome  inftru6lor5  in  order  to 
be  governed  and  taught,  according  to  the 
regulations  and  difcipline  of  his  fchooK  In 
this  v;ay  they  are  regularly  admitted — their 
names  are  regiftered,  and  they  are  bound  to 
fubmit  to  his  authority  and  orders,  for  the 
parpofe  of  being  inftruded  and  educated. 

The  Apoftles  regarded  their  Mafter,  as  an 
extraordinary  Teacher^  fent  from  God  ;  and 
being  commiffioned  by  him  ''  to  difcipk  all 
*'  nations^  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Fath- 
''  cr,  and  of  the  Son*  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl^'* 
they  undoubtedly  confidered  themfelves  au- 
thorized to  initiate  as  difciples  by  baptifm, 
into  his  vifible  kingdom,  adult  believers  and 
their  infant  children.  This  formal  and  reg- 
ular admiffion  as  difciples  was  in  order  to 
prepare  the  way  for  religious  difcipline,  in- 
ftruBion  and  education.  For  being  thus 
regularly  admitted,  "  Chrift  ordered  his  A- 
*'  poftles  to  teach  them  to  obferve  all  things  what- 
^' foever  he  had  co7nmanded  ;  at  the  fame  time 
^'  promifing  his  gracious  prefence  and  ajfijlance^ 
^'  even  until  the  end  of  the  worldJ" 


^6  AN   APOLOGY   FO"R 

If  we  would  rightly  underftand  any  an- 
cient inflitution,  according  to  its  original  ex- 
tent and  meaning,  we  muft  carefully  inform 
ourfeives  with  refped  to  the  relative  circum- 
ftances  and  cuftoms  of  that  particular  age 
and  country,  for  which  it  was  primarily 
intended. 

If  Ch rift  had  intended  that  infants  fhould 
not  be  baptized,  it  would  then  have  been 
neceflary  for  him  to  have  mentioned  his  in- 
tention ;  but  as  there  was  no  prohibition,  or 
intimation  of  this  kind,  the  Apoftles  would 
have  fuppofed  that  they  were  bound  to  bap- 
tize them,  as  a  thing  of  courfe. 

Some  perfons,  at  the  prefent  day,  appear 
ftrongly  prejudiced  againft  infant  Bapiifm  ; 
but  the  Apoftles  had  no  fuch  prepoffeffions. 
Their  principles,  prejudices  and  expc6la- 
tions  were  habitually  in  favour  of  this  doc- 
^trine.  The  manner  in  which  infants  had 
always  been  treated  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant— under  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  and 
even  by  our  Lord  and  Mafter  himfelf,  would 
have  led  them  to  this  conclufion. 

The  pra6lice  of  the  Apoftles  was  evident- 
ly conformable  to  this  opinion.  St.  Peter, 
in  his  very  fiift  fermon,  which  was  fo  fuc- 
cefsful,  having  exhorted  his  hearers  to  re- 
pent and  be  baptized,  adds,  /or  the  promife  is  tc 
you  and  your  childre7i.  He  certainly  had  re- 
ference to  that  remarkable  promife  which 
God  made  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  and 
thus  his  hearers,  who  were  Jews   and  profe- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  97 

lytes,  muft  have  underflood  him.  In  this 
covenant,  which  was  formed  by  God  him- 
felf,  and  which  had  been  fupported  more 
than  two  thoufand  years,  by  his  lively  ora- 
cles, and  which  was  declared  to  be  everlaft- 
ing,  it  was  exprefsly  promifed,  /  will  he  a 
God  to  thee  and  to  thy  feed.  Purfuant  to  this 
promife,  children  were  admitted  with  their 
parents,  into  the  fame  covenant.  This  the 
Jews  efteemed  an  unfpeakable  privilege ; 
and  they  who  believed  had  not  the  leaft 
fufpicion  of  being  deprived  of  it,  by  em- 
bracing the  gofpel  of  Chrift. 

There  was  a  time,  when  their  fears  were  a 
little  alarmed,  by  means  of  mifreprefentation, 
■with  refpeft  to  the  condu8:  of  Sc.  Paul,  bat 
the  miftake  was  foon  removed;  and  they 
never  had  any  fuch  apprehenfions,  either 
from  the  preaching  or  pra^ice  of  the  other 
Apoftles.  The  unbelieving  Jews,  no  where 
obje6led  to  the  gofpel,  on  the  account  of  its 
excluding  their  infant  children  from  the 
covenant.  Indeed,  an  exclufion  of  this  kind 
is  not  fo  much  as  once  mentioned,  in  the 
New  Teftament,  either  with  approbation  or 
difapprobation,  by  thofe  who  believed,  or 
difbelieved  the  gofpel  of  Chrift.  This  demon- 
ftrates,  that  the  innovation,  which  you  have 
fuppofed,  never  did  take  place  among  them. 

Thofe  principles  and  cuftoms.    which  are 

univerfally  admitted,  or  univerfally  rejeded, 

have    no   oppofers  and    no    advocates;  and 

thefe    are  the    only    principles   and  cuftoiHw^ 

I 


q8  A^:    APOLOGY    TOK 

about  which  there  is  no  controverfy.  An 
attempt  to  make  innovaiionsand  alterations  in 
the  affairs  and  regulations,  either  of  church  or 
ftate, always  produces  oppofition  and  difputes. 

The  Jews  were  not  a  very  complianf,  paflive 
people,  but  ftrenuoufiy  attached  to  the  prin- 
ciples and  forms  of  their  religion.  As  Mr.  Ed- 
wards judly  obferves,  '*  they  would  wrangle 
"  for  a  rite,  quarrel  for  a  fail,  and  almoft  fight 
'•  for  a  new  moon."  St.  Luke,  in  his  hiftory 
of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  informs  us,  that 
many  thoufands  of  the  Jews  believed^  and  that 
they  all -were  zealous  of  the  law.  Believers  and 
unbelievers  were  equally  zealous  for  their 
eftabliihed  principles  and  cuftoms. 

We  cannot  reafonably  fuppofe  that  thefe 
jews  w^ould  have  quietly  rclinquifhed  thofe 
long  approved  principles  and  cuftoms,  of 
which  they  were  religioufly  and  extravagant- 
ly tenacious ;  that  they  would  have  tamely 
confented  to  fee  their  children  excluded  and 
precluded  the  covenavit  of  promife^  and  never 
once  open  their  mouths  by  way  of  oppofi- 
tion or  complaint.  It  is  no  where  intimated 
in  the  New  Teftament,  that  any  friend  or  foe 
to  the  chriftian  religion,  ever  (aid  one  word« 
for  or  againft  ihis  great,  fuppofed  innovacion. 
The  fuppofition  is  therefore  inadmiffible. 
The  pretended  alteration  is  incredible.  It 
never  did  take  place.  The  infant  children 
of  believing  parents  never  v.^ere  rejefted, 
or  excluded  from  God's  gracious  covenant. 
The  Jews  had  no  occafion  to  complain  and 


INFANT     BAPTISM, 


99 


find  fault  ;  and  this  is  the  only  v;ay,  in  which 
we  can  poflTibly  account  for  their  perfe6l 
filence,  in  the  prefent  cafe.  The  neceffity  of 
circu:T»cirion  was  fuperfeded  by  Baptifnijbut  as 
we  have  obferved.  the  covenant  and  the'mem- 
bers  thereof,  remained  fubftantialiy  the  fame. 
Thofe  Jews,  who  believed  and  had  been 
baptized,  were  defirous  of  having  the  prac- 
tice of  circ-umcifion  (lill  continued;  and  it 
appears  that  they  were  indulged.  But  the 
Apofiles  would  not  confeni  to  have  thi.s 
grievous  burden  impofed  on  the  believing 
Gentiles,  contrary  to  their  wifhes  and  re- 
monflrances.  The  Aporties  confiJered  cir- 
cumcirion  as  unnecedary,  but  not  as  unlaw- 
ful;  they  therefore,  upon  the  principle  of 
expediency,  difcontinued  the  pra6lice  among 
the  believing  Gentiles,  and  upon  the  fame 
principle  allowed  it  to  be  continued  among 
the  believing  Jews ;  but  were  very  careful  to 
inform  them  that  circumcifion  was  no  longer 
effential — not  being  required  under  the  mild 
difpenfation  of  the  gofpel ; — ihdii Baptifm  was 
the  circumcifion  of  Chrift ; — that  having  been 
baptized^  they  -were  complete  in  him^  without 
being  chirurgically  or  literally  circumcifed  ; 
that  believers  of  every  nation  were  the  feed  of 
Abraham,  and  heirs  even  as  Ifaac ; — that  the 
promije  was  made  to  them  and  their  children ; 
and,  confequently,  the  children  of  believers 
have  the  fame  right  to  Baptifm,  which  the 
children  of  Ifaac  had  to  circumcifion.  It 
was   upon  this   principle^  undoubtedly,  that 


100  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

the  Apoille   baptized    the  houfeholds  of  be- 
lieving parents. 

The  adult  believer,  who  devotes  himfelf 
to  Chrift  in  Baptifm,  hereby  declares  pub- 
lickly  his  faith  in  the  chriftian  religion,  and 
promifes  that  he  will  endeavour  to  condu6^ 
agreeably  to  its  laws  and  ordinances.  When 
the  believing  parent  thus  dedicates  his  child 
to  Chrift  in  Bapiifm,  he  hereby  acknowledges 
him  to  be  the  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of  in- 
fant children,  as  well  as  of  adults.  He  en- 
gages to  co-operate  with  Chrid,  in  the  ufe  of 
fuitable  and  appointed  means,  in  order  to 
train  up  his  children  for  him,  in  the  ways  of 
religion  and  virtue. 

The  befi:  inftitutions  have  been  negleBed 
by  fome,  and  abufed  by  others.  Thus  the 
ordinance  of  Baptifm  has  been  often  treated, 
both  as  it  refpefts  adults  and  infants.  But 
ftill  it  is  an  ordinance  of  great  importance; 
and  well  calculated  to  fecure  the  obedience 
of  parents,  and  the  religious  and  virtuous 
education  of  children.  Infant  Baptifm  has 
frequently  reminded  parents  of  their  obliga- 
tions, and  has  excited  them  to  bring  up  their 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonitio7i  of  the  Lord, 
It  has  frequently  reminded  children  of  their 
duty,  and  has  produced  happy  effeBs  upon 
their  hearts  and  lives.  David  fays,  they  that 
he  planted  in  the  hoiife  of  the  Lord/fhall  flourijli 
in  the  courts  of  our  God;  andfJiall  flill  brivg 
forth  fruit  in  old  age, 

1  a:;i,  Sir,  <&:c. 


•<:>->■  <^-. -c^s-,  <-c>-i  ■-<:>^ '-'i*^  ■-'T^^-"  ^-<£*^  ^-ca-i  - 


PART       II. 

ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTIZING. 


LETTER     X, 

SIR, 


A: 


.S  was  propofed,  I  have  attempted  to  vin- 
dicate the  rite  o^  infant  Baptifm^  and  am  now 
ready  to  confider  the  different  modes  of 
baptizing,  and  fhow  the  propriety  of  admin- 
iftcring  this  religious  ordinance  to  the  proper 
fubjefts,  according  to  the  ufual  praftice  of 
applying  or  fprinkling  water  upon  them,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Sen,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghofl. 

But  before  we  proceed,  let  it  be  premifed, 
that  you  and  1  are  agreed  in  the  lawfulnefs 
and  validity  of  Baptifm,  when  adminiftered 
by  immerfion.  There  is  therefore  no  con- 
troverfy  between  us  upon  this  point.  But 
you  pretend  that  immerfion  is  the  only  lawful 
and  valid  mode;  that  all  other  modes  of 
baptizing  are  unlawful  and  invalid  ;  and  in 
order  to  fupport  this  opinion  you  have 
quoted  the  greater  part,  if  not  all,  thofe  paf- 
fages  of  fciipture,  which  relate   to  Baptifm, 

1    2 


102  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

and  then  conclude  your  firft  fermon,  by  ob- 
ferving,  "  We  fee  that  every  thing  looks  as 
*^  though  immerfion  might  be  the  mode,  and 
*•  as  for  fprinkling,  there  is,  to  fay  the  leaft, 
^'  nothing  that  looks  like  it." 

To  me.  Sir,  it  appears  unaccountable,  and 
even  impoffible,  that  fo  many  great  and  good 
men  (yourfelf  among  the  reft)  fhould,  for  fo 
long  a  time,  remain  in  the  belief  and  praftice 
of  a  certain  m,ode  of  baptizing,  when  they 
could,  and  can  find  nothing,  in  the  facred 
volume,  "  that  even  looks  like  it.'^ 

It  feems,  however,  that  you  have,  of  late, 
altered  your  opinion,  and  now  fee  with  diffe- 
rent eyes  ;  but  your  brethren  in  the  miniftry 
have  not  altered  theirs.  They  ftill  confider 
the  pra6lice  of  fprinkling,  pouring,  &c.  as 
fufficiently  and  clearly  warranted  in  the 
holy  fcriptures;  and  that  thofe  "  threefcore 
pafTages,"  mentioned  by  you,  as  favouring  the 
mode  of  plunging,  might  have  been  cited  as 
properly  and  as  conclufively,  by  any  other 
perfon,  even  in  favour  of  the  more  ufual 
modes  of  baptizing. 

The  publick  nov/  have,  before  them,  your 
affertion  and  mine  ;  but  all  unprejudiced 
peiTons  of  lenfe  will  think  that  we  ought  to 
produce  better  reafons  for  their  belief. 

You  tell  us,  in  your  fecond  fermon,  "  that 
*'  to  baptize^  fignifies  to  plunge  under  water, 
"  to  dip,  or  wafh  ihe  body  all  over."  "  That 
''  Baptilm  fignifies  to  dip,  plunge,  immerfe, 
"  or  wafh  the  body  all  over  in  water,"     And 


INFANT     BAPTIS-^.  IC3 

for  proof  appeal  to  Schrevelius'  Lexicon, 
Butterworih's  Cor^cordance,  Entick's  and 
Bailey's  DiQionaries ;  and  alfo  to  three  no- 
ted witneffes,  viz.  Calvin,  Zanchius,  and 
good  Dr.  Owen.  You  appear  to  place  the 
greateft  ftrefs  conceivable,  upon  your  afore- 
faid  definitions  of  Baptifm  and  to  baptize^ 
Sec.  and  alfo  upon  the  meaning  of  the  origi- 
nal words,  Baptifma  and  baptizo. 

Having  confulted  your  Greek  Lexicon, 
Concordance  and  Diftionaries,  you  inform 
us,  in  fermon  v,  page  69,  "  The  evidence 
"  produced  from  their  united  teftimony  was 
"  in  (hort  the  following  :  That  the  plain,  lit- 
"  eral,  and  common,  if  not  iiniverfal,  fignifi- 
"  cation  of  the  words  Baptifm  and  to  baptize^ 
"  is  immerfion  and  to  immerfe,  bury  in  water, 
"  to  dip,  or  to  plunge  a  perfon  all  over  in 
"  water." 

I  believe,  Sir,  that  no  one  will  difpute 
what  thefe  men  have  teftified  We  all  are 
willing  to  acknovv'ledge,  that  perfons  may  be 
lawfully  baptized,  by  dipping  or  immerfion  ; 
and  that  this  mode  is  agreeable  to  the  '*  plain, 
"  literal,  and  common  fignification  of  the 
"  word  Baptifm  and  to  baptize.''' 

Thofe  authors,  whom  you  have  inftanced 
as  authorities,  in  the  prefent  cafe,  according 
to  your  own  confcflion,  have  not  faid  nor 
intimated,  that  to  dip  or  immerfe,  was  the 
"  univerfal"  and  only  '•  fignificaiion  of  the 
word,  to  baptize."  The  words,  ''  plain^  lite- 
rali  and  common^''  are  adjeclivesj  and  admit 


104  ^^    APOLOGY   FOR 

of  differen;  degrees  of  compariTon.  Dfp- 
ping  may  be  a  "  plain^  lit^raU  and  common''* 
fignification  of  the  word  Baptifm,  and  yet 
there  may  be,  and  undoubtedly  are,  other 
fignifications,  more  or  lefs  plain,  literal,  and 
common,  according  to  the  different  views 
and  apprehenfions  of  different  p@rfoBs.  This, 
I  am  fenfible,  is  not  your  fentiment.  Ac- 
cording to  your  opinion,  to  baptize^  fignifics 
to  dip^  or  immerfc  in  water,  exclafively  of  all 
other  fignijications — to  dip  and  nothing  elfe  j 
and,  confequently,  that  all  other  modes  of 
baptizing  are  unlawful  and  invalid — a  mere 
nullity  or  mockery.  This  is  the  ground  on 
which  you  {land.  It  has  not  perhaps  been 
explicitly  avowed.  But  it  is  abfolutely  necef- 
fary,  that  the  quellion  between  us  fhould 
be  correctly  and  intelligibly  (lated. 

Let  us  now  examine  more  critically  the 
Lexicons  and  Dictionaries.  Schreveiius, 
that  great  mafter  and  critick  in  the  Greek 
tongue,  when  defining  the  verb  Baptize^ 
gives  three  definitions,  viz.  Baptizo^  mergo, 
lavo.  But  what  does  his  firft  definition,  hap- 
^/zo,  mean?  Why  has  he,  inftead  of  tranfla- 
ting,  as  in  other  cafes,  tranfcnbed,  the  origi- 
nal word,  and  transferred  it  into  the  Latin 
language  ?  Undoubtedly  becaufe  he  confid- 
ered  the  word  as  having  feveral  fignifica- 
lions ;  and  that  it  ought  not,  when  applied  to 
the  Chridian  Baptifm,  to  be  reflrided  to  any 
one  mode  of  baptizing.  The  Latin  word 
mergo,  1  admit,  fignifies  to  plunge.    The  word 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  10- 


lavo^  is  of  various  fignifications,  one  of  which 
is,  according  to  Young's  Latin  DiBionary,  to 
oejprinkle.  Cole's  Latin  Di^ionary,  as  you 
have  cbferved,  when  tranflaiing  ihe  word 
laptizo^.  mentions,  to  jpyviUt^  as  being  one  of 
its  fignifications.  One  definition  of  Baptifm, 
in  Ainfworth's  Latin  DiQionary,  is  alfo  to 
fprinkle  water  (afpergere  aquam.) 

Let  us  now  enquire  how  Schrevelius  de- 
fines the  Greek  fubftantives.  Baptismos  and 
BapUfma.  Bo.ptis7no5*  he  tranfiates  into  the 
Latin  w^ord  Lotio,  which  fignifies  bathing,  or 
any  kind  of  wafhing,  without  being  reftrided 
to  the  mode.  But  the  Greek  word  Baptis- 
71105,  I  believe,  is  never  once  made  ufe  of  by 
the  Apoflles,  in  the  new  Teftament,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Chrifiian  Baptifm.  They  have, 
for  this  purpofe,  invariably  ufed  the  word 
Baptijma^  which  Schrevelius,  in  his  Lexicon, 
defines  thus,  if  it  can  be  called  a  definition. 
Baptifma,  Bapufma,  Baptifm,  He  has  not 
pre  fumed  to  t  ran  (late  the  word,  but  with  re- 
doubled caution,  has  twace  tranfcribed  it ;  in 
the  firft  place,  literally,  for  the  Latin  lan- 
guage, and  in  the  fecond  place,  with  only  the 
omiffion  of  the  laft  letter,  for  the  Englifh  lan- 
guage. He  did  not  fuppofe  that  the  origi- 
nal word  was  reflriBed  to  one  fignification 
exclufively,  or  to  one  mode  of  baptizing, 
and  therefore  chofe  to  leave  it  undecided, 
as  Chrifl;  and  his  Apoflles  had  left  it. 

Our  tranflators  of  the  Greek  Teflament 
kave  proceeded  with  the  fanae  religious  caii-^ 


loS  AN    APGLOGY    FOR 

Jion.  In  all  the  Latin  Teftaments  that  Ihave 
feen,  the  original  words  are  not  Latinized, 
but  tranfcribed  ;  and  thus  it  is  in  our  Englifh 
Teflaments.  The  original  words,  when  they 
relate  to  the  ordinance  of  Baptifm,  are  not 
Englifiied,  as  in  other  cafes,  but  tranfcribed,. 
Baptize  and  Baptifm  are  neither  Latin  nor 
Englifh,  but  Greek  words,  tranfcribed  from 
the  Greek  Teftament. 

As  the  infpired  writers  have  not  defined 
the  (enfe.  in  w^hich  the  original  words  fhould 
be  ufed,  thofe  learned  Divines,  who  trarifia- 
ted  the  new  Teftament,  refufed  to  define 
them,  bv  fubftituting  the  Ensliih  words^ 
ipriiikling,  or  dipping.  An  attempt  to  ref- 
tri6l  the  meaning  to  any  particular  mode  of 
baptizing,  they  viewed  as  ioipious — like  the 
prefumptuous  conduQ  of  Uzzah,  who  offi- 
cioufly  flit  forth  his  hand  to  fleady  the  ark  cf 
God. 

Perry's  Dictionary  is   equally  cautious. — 
"Baptize,  is   defined  to  chrflen.      Baptifm,  (j 
^'^  facrammt  -which  admits  into  the  church,     Bap- 
**  tifi,  he  zoho  adminiflers  Baptifm.     Baptiflory, . 
"  the  place  -where  perfons  o.re  baptized" 

Let  us  now  fee  what  the  great  Dr.  John- 
fon's  Di8ionary  fays,  which  excels  all  others,- 
in  the  accurate  definition  of  words.  «  Bap- 
^'  tifm  ;  Baptfm  is  given  by  water ^  and  that  pre- 
^'^  f crip t  form  of  words^  which  the  church  ofChriJl 
^^  doth  ufe.  Baptize  ;  to  chrifien  ;  to  adminifler 
"  the  facrament  of  Baptfm,  Baptift;  he  that 
^  admin  flers  Baptifm".       And    even   Entick 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  lOj 

defines  Baptifm,  as  being  ^^  a  facrament  that 
^«  admits  into  the  church,''  How  cauiioufly 
have  thefe  great  criticks  avoided  faying  any 
thing  about  the  mode  of  adminiftering  the 
Chriilian  Baptifm.  They  confidered  the  pe- 
culiarity of  the  mode,  whether  it  be  fprink- 
ling,  pouring,  dipping,  &c.  as  not  being 
fpecified  by  the  pen  of  infpiration,  and  con- 
fequently,  as  not  being  effential  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  Baptifm. 

This  kind  of  criticifm  is,  in  my  opinion^ 
of  very  confiderabie  importance;  and  I  won- 
der that  you  could  fo  entirely  overlook  it. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  what  your  three  wit- 
neffes  fay.  You  tell  us,  "  that  Calvin,  a  very 
^'  warm  oppofer  of  the  Eaptift,  as  a  witnefs, 
"  fhall  come  firll ;  his  teftimony  is,  howbeii^ 
•^'  the  very  word  of  baptizing,  fgnijies  to  dip.'' 

'•  Zanchius  fays,  baptize^  is  to  imjuerfe^ 
^'  plunge  under^  overwhelm  in  water." 

"  Dr.  Owen  fays,  the  original  (ignification 
"  of  baptizo^  is  to  dip.  to  plunge.''' 

Thefe  men,  Sir,  have  alTerted  v/hat  no  per- 
fon  denies  ;  for  every  one  will  readily  allov/ 
that,  baptizo,  fignifies  to  dip.  Your  witnc-fies 
have  not  faid,  nor  intimated,  that  to  dip,  was 
the  07ily  fignification  of  the  word  baptize. 
This  was  not  their  opinion,  nor  did  they  in- 
tend or  expe6l5  to  be  thus  underftood. 
Calvin,  in  particular,  was  a  zealous  advocate 
for  the  mode  of  pouring  or  fprinkling.  In 
his  inftitutes,  he  fays,  "  the  difference  is  of 
^*  no  moment,  whether  he  who  is   baptized^ 


tc8  AN    APOLOGY    FOIL 

^«  be  dipped  all  over,  and  if  fo,  whetlier 
^*  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  he  be  only  wet- 
"  ted  by  the  water  poured  on  him."  ''  So 
*'  little  difference  in  ceremony  ought  not  to 
'•  be  confidered  by  us  of  fuch  importance, 
"  as  on  that  account  to  rend  the  church,  or 
^'  trouble  it  v;ith  broils."  Dr.  Owen,  alfo* 
exprefsly  fays,  as  Mr.  Booth  himfelf  ac- 
-knowledges,  "  that  the  original  and  natural 
"  fignificauon  of  bapiizo,  imports  to  dip,  to 
^^  plunge,  to  dye  ;  yet  ii  alio  fignifies,  to  wa/Ii 
"  or  cleanfe.'' 

You  further  inform  us,  "  that  you  could 
«  bring  forward  a  multitude  of  witnefles,  and 
<'  all  from  our  own  order,  the  Poedobaptifts, 
«'  to  prove  ihe  fame  point,  but  in  the  mouth 
*'  of  two  or  three  witnefTes,  if  they  be  good 
*'  ones,  every  word  fhall  be  ettabliflied." 

I  am  fenfible  that  you  might,  inftead  of 
fele6ling  three,  have  named  the  whole  num- 
ber of  eighty-two,  mentioned  by  Mr.  Booth. 
But,  Sir,  we  ought  to  remember  that  thefe 
-faithful  witneff-s,  were  not  volunteers.  They 
have  been  preffed  into  your  fervice.  even 
{ince  they  were  dead,  and  deprived  of  an 
opportunity  to  vindicate  themfelves. — Their 
teftimony  ought  to  have  been  confidered  and 
reported  with  the  utmoft  impartiality  and 
fairn  efs. 

The  various  quotaiiejns  of  Mr.  Booth,  re- 
lative to  pofiiive  ir.ftitutions,  and  to  general 
rules  for  underftanding  and  interpreting 
fcripture,  would  be,  I  prefume,  much  more 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  10$ 

intelligible  and  inftruftive  to  many  of  his 
readers,  if  they  were  but  acquainted  with  the 
particular  cafes,  for  which  thole  learned  and 
refpeBable  authors  intended,  and  to  which 
they  applied  them.  The  application  which 
has  been  made  by  Mr.  Booth  and  yourfeif, 
efpecially  with  rerpe6t  to  the  mode  of  Bap- 
tifm,  does  not  appear  to  be  fo  candid  as 
could  be  wifhed,  nor  fo  judicious  and  con- 
clufive  as  you  and  that  gentleman  feem  to 
have  imagined. 

I  am  ready  to  allow  that  fome  perfons, 
v;ho  believe  in  infant  Baptifm,  as  being  of  di- 
vine  appointment,  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
dipping  infants  as  well  as  adults.  This  has 
been,  and  ftill  is  the  pradice  of  the  Greek 
churches.  Others  alfo,  who  are  in  the  habit 
of  adminiftering  Baptifm  by  pouring  or 
fprinkling,  have,  for  various  reafons,  wifhed 
that  the  mode  of  dipping  might  obtain.  Some 
have  fuppofed  dipping  to  be  the  mod  an- 
cient and  fignificant  mode  ;  and  have,  on 
thefe  accounts,  wifhed  it  to  prevail;  and 
feme  have  wifhed  it.  for  the  fake  of  uniformity, 
being  wearied  out  with  a  very  unpleafantand 
unprofitable  coniroverfy.  But  probably,  not 
one  of  thofe  men,  whofe  names  have  been 
mentioned,  did  believe  that  the  mode  of 
dipping,  was  effential  to  the  ordinance  of 
Baptifm.  It  was  their  opinion,  rhat  perfons 
might  be  baptized  lawfully,  by  having  water 
poured  or  fprinkled  upon  them  ;  and  that 
iheie  mode's   of  haotizing  were  agreeable  t© 

k' 


110  ^     AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

the  fignification  of  the  original  word  haptizo. 
Thus  this  cloud  of  witnefles,  inftead  of  tefti- 
fying  in  favour  of  the  Baptif!  principle,  ref- 
pe6ling  the  neajfity  of  dipping,  have  general- 
ly and  decidedly  teflified  aganit  it. 

Mr.  Booth,  as  he  fays,  '^  in  order  to  pre- 
"  vent  miftakes,"  has  defned  the  reader  to 
obferve,  that  no  inconfiderable  part  of  thefe 
learned  authors  have  afftrtcd^  that  the  word 
Baptifm^  {\gm^QS pouring  or  fprmklwg^  as  well 
as  immerfion.  He  and  you  have  told  us, 
what  each  individual  faid  concerning  dipping ; 
but  have  not  been  fo  impartial  as  to  infofui 
us,  what  ihey  individually  faid,  concerning 
pouring  and  fpr inkling.  It  is  certainly  incum- 
bent on  witnelTes,  and  equally  incumbent  on 
thofe  who  report  their  teftimony,  to  relate 
ike  zuhok  truths  as  well  as  nothing  but  the 
truth. 

Before  we  difmifs  this  argument,  let  us 
fpend  a  moment  in  examining  the  teftimony 
of  the  Quakers,  which  appears  to  be  confid- 
ered,  by  fome  perfons,  as  of  peculiar  impor- 
tance in  the  prefent  controverfy.  Mr. 
Booth  ftyles  them  "  the  impartial,  difintereft- 
'•  ed  friends  of  the  Baptift." — and  tells  us, 
*'  that  they  defpife  infant  fprinkling."  Some 
learned  Quakers,  it  feem^,  have  fuppofed 
that  dipping  was  the  primitive  mode  of  bap- 
tizing ;  and  that  the  original  word  baplizo, 
fignifies  to  dip^  io plunge.  And  their  opinion 
in  this  relpe8:  is  thought  to  be  of  the  greateft 
weight  and  authority,  becaufe  they  "  are  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  Ill 

impartial^ dijinterejled  friends  of"  the  Baptift." 
But  how  does  their  impaniality  appear  ?  In 
denying  and  in  reje8.ing  all  water  Bapiifm. 
And  how  does  their  difinterefted  friendfhip 
appear?  "In  defpifing  infant  fprinkling," 
and  in  advocating  the  mode  of  dipping,  in 
which  they  feem  to  have  no  intereft.  The 
truth,  however,  is  this  :  the  Quakers  are  'as 
much  oppofed  to  plunging,  as  ihey  are  to 
fprinkling,  and  to  adult  Baptifm,  as  they  are 
to  iiifant  Baptifm  ;  but  they  are,  compara- 
tively, a  fmall  fett.  like  the  Baptiil;  and 
nothing  is  more  coiimon,  than  for  different 
^^Ei^^  of  the  mod  unfriendly  and  oppofite 
fentimentSv  to  unire  harmoinoufly,  in  order 
to  divide  and  deflrov  a  more  numerous  and 
powerful  fociety  of  men.  The  Quakers 
confider  the  Baptift,  as  approaching  nearefl 
to  their  religious  fydem.  and  are  ready  to 
hope  and  expeft,  that,  if  by  joining  with  them, 
they  fhould  be  able  to  overthrow  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  Baptifm,  which  they  view  as 
the  principal  barrier,  adult  plunging  or 
Baptifm  would  foon  be  renounced  as  a  thing 
ofcourfe.  This  is  the  Quaker  policy.  They 
are  not  lefs  partial  to  their  cfwn  principles, 
nor  lefs  defirous  of  making  profelytes,  than 
-chridians  of  other  denominations. 

Thus,  the  fuppofed  argument  in  favour  of 
immerfion  exdiifively^'Tt^wVAng  from  the  '•  dif- 
'•  interefted  friendfliip  of  the  Quakers."  ap- 
pears to  be  miferably  weak — entirely  without 
foundation.     And    certainly    they    did    not 


112  AN    APOLeCY    FOR 

excel  in  Greek  criticifrn  ;  nor  ever  pretendy 
that  to  dip,  orimmerfe,  was  the  only  fignifica- 
tion  of  the  original  word  baptizo. 

Among  the  numerous  and  various  autho^ 
rities  that  have  been  produced,  there  is  not 
SI  fingle  inftance  of  direft  and  pofitive  tefti- 
mony;  nor  the  lead  degree  of  evidence,  to 
prove  that  the  original  word  baptizo^  (ignifies 
to  dip  or  immerfe,  and  nothing  elfe  ;  or  that 
the  original  word  Baptifma'i  fignifies  dipping 
or  immerfion,  and  nothing  elfe.  Indeed,  I 
never  yet  found  this  fentiment  openly  and 
explicitly  avowed,  by  any  learned  writer,  or 
critick  in  the  Greek  language. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  the  moft  refpeBable  and  critical  Au- 
thors, ProfefTors,  and  Expofitors,  have  ex- 
prefsly  afferted  that  the  word  Baptizo^  accord- 
ing to  its  true  and  original  meaning,  has  va- 
rious fignifications ; — that  it  fignifies  to  wet 
with  water,  partially^  as  well  as  totally,  and 
hy  fpr inkling  ox  pourings  S^c.  as  well  as  by 
dipping  or  immerfion.  This  is  what  Mr. 
Booth  has  acknowledged,  and  none  can  de- 
ny it.  I  will,  however,  mention  a  few  in- 
{lances,  extraded  chiefly  from  Mr.  Walker's 
very  learned  treatife  on  the  doBrine  of 
Baptifms. 

'•Leigh,  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  fays,  that 
«  Bapiifm  is  fuch  a  kind  of  wafhing,  as  is  by 
"  plunging,  and  yet  it  is  taken  more  largely, 
«  for  any  kind  of  wafhing^  rinfingorcleanfing, 
t'  even    where    there  is    no  dipping  at  alW 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  II3 

<«  Chrifl,"  fays  he,  '•  no  where  requires  dip- 
"  ping,  but  baptizing" — "  to  fprinkle  or  wafh 
''  one's  body,  facramentally." 

'•  Zelenus,  that  learned  man,  faith,  Bap- 
<<  lifm,  if  you  confider  the  etymology  of  the 
"  word,  fignifies  dipping,  and  alfo  fprink- 
^'  ling." — '-He  fays,  that  dipping  was  formerly 
•^  more  ufed,  efpecially  in  the  hot  countries 
"  of  Judea,"  '^  but  not  that  this  mode  was  u- 
*'  niverfally  praftifed  or  effer^ial  to  the  ordi- 
*•  nance  of  Baptifm." — "  He  exprefsly  ap- 
"  proves  of  fprinkling  as  valid  Baptifm." 

Beza  fays,  "  they  are  rightly  baptized,  who 
"  are  baptized  by  fprinkling." 

J.  WicklifF  fays,  "  it  matters  not  whether 
"  they  were  dipped  once  or  three  times,  or 
"  whether  water  were  poured  upon  their 
"  heads." — •'  That  every  one  might  acl  ac- 
*•  cording  to  the  cuftom  of  the  place." — '•  He 
••  did  not  believe  that  total  immerfion  was 
"  neceffary." 

Dr.  "  Hammond  no  where  fays,  that  Bap- 
'•  tifmos  fignifies  immerfion  and  nothing  elfe." 
"  He  viewed  it  as  extending  to  other  modes 
"  of  wafliing," — "  He  never  held  that  all 
"  modes  of  baptizing,  except  by  immerfion, 
"  were  unlawful  and  invalid." 

Dr.  Gill,  a  Baptift,  tells  us,  '•  that  the  na- 
"  live  and  proper  {ignificafion  of  the  origi- 
'•  nal  word  baptizo,  is  to  dip  into  water,  or 
«'  to  plunge  under  water;"  and  Cafaubon, 
Bulinger,  and  Zanchy,are  cited,  fromLeigh's 
Criiica  Sacra,  as  agreeing  to  this  opinion  ; 
K  2 


1  14  AN    APOLOCY    FOR 

but  be  witbbolds  from  us  wbat  tbat  critical 
autbor  bad  previoufly  obferved,  viz.  "  Al- 
"  thougb  tbe  word  baptize^  be  derived  from 
*'  hapto^  tingo^  to  dip^  or  plunge  into  tbe  wa- 
"  ter,  and  fignifies,  primarily,  fucb  a  kind  of 
''  wafbing  as  is  ufed  in  bucks,  wbere  linnen 
"  is  plunged  and  dipped  ;  yet  it  is  taken, 
*'  more  largely,  for  any  kind  of  wafbing,  rin- 
"  fing  or  cleanfing,  even  where  there  is  no 
"  dipping  at  all  ;'*  and  quotes  Dr.  Featly,  as 
faying,  "  Cbrift  nowhere  requireth  dipping, 
*«  but  only  baptizing;  which  word  (Hefy- 
"  chius,  Stephanus,  Scapula,  and  Budaeas, 
"  tbofe  great  mafters  of  tbe  Greek  tongue, 
'^  make  good  by  very  many  inftances  and  al- 
"  legations,  out  of  tbe  clafTic  writer's.)  im- 
"  portetb  no  more  than  ablution,  or  wafbing.'* 

"  Whitaker  fays,  the  word  bapiizo,  figni- 
"  fies  not  only  to  dip,  but  alfo  to  tinge  or 
"  wet." 

"  Lightfoot  fay?,  the  word  Baptifm,  doe* 
**  not  always  denote  immerfion,  but  fome- 
•'  times  wafliing  only,  or  even  fprinkling." 

'•  Maiiricht  fays,  it  fignifies  waQiing  either 
•'  by  fprinkling  or  dipping." 

The  fame  opinion  has  been  fincerely  em- 
braced and  well  defended  by  many  of  the 
moft  learned  and  eminent  divines  of  our  own 
nativ>n,  viz.  the  Rev.  Peter  Clark,  Dr.  Mo- 
fcs  Hemmenway,  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  Dr. 
Jofeph  Laibrop,  and  others;  whofe  abilities 
and  chara6lers  are  extenfively  known  and 
uaiverfaily  edeemed,  and  whofe  writings  may 


INFANT     BAPTISM*  1  I5 

be  eafily  obtained,  by  any  perfon  who  wifhes 
to  read  them. 

Dr.  Hopkins  exprefsly  obferves,  "  that 
«  the  mode  of  Baptifm,  and  the  form  and 
"  manner  of  applying  and  uiing  water,  in  this 
"  ordinance,  does  not  appear  to  be  decided- 
"  ly  fixed  in  fcripture." — "  That  plunging, 
"  pouring,  and  fprinkling,  have  been  embra- 
"  ced  and  praBifed  by  different  churches." 
"  That  when  the  fcriptures  are  carefully  ex= 
"  amined,  it  will  noi  appear  that  plunging 
"  was  inftituted  by  Chrift,  or  pra6iired  by 
"  the  Apoflles ;  or  that  the  original  word, 
"  tranflated  Baptifm,  or  to  baptize,  invaria- 
"  bly  fignifies  plunging  the  whole  body  under 
"  water." — This  he  fays,  «^has  been  partic- 
"  ularly  confidered  and  proved,  over  and  o- 
"  ver  again,  by  writers  upon  the  fubje6^, 
*^  Therefore,  their  opinion  and  praBice  feem 
"  moft  agreeable  to  fcripture,  who  think  no 
"  particular  form  of  applying  water  in  Bap- 
*•  tifm  is  there  prefcribed,  either  by  precept 
"  or  example,  or  by  any  thing  faid  on  this 
"  point." — "  Confeqjently,  every  church  is 
*'  left  to  adopt  that  particular  mode  which 
''  appears  to  them  moft  decent  and  conveni- 
"  ent;  or,  that  different  perfons  may  be  re- 
"  ally  baptized,  by  the  application  of  water, 
*'  in  different  ways,  Sec, 

Dr.  Wall,  in  the  appendix  of  his  reply  to 
Dr.  Gale,  mentions  a  remarkable  inllance, 
in  which  the  mode  of  wetting  or  of  ap- 
plying water  was  certainly  that   oPpouring 


Il6  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

and  not  that  of  dipping.  It  is  as  follows  :— 
St.  Ori^en,  when  commenting  on  the  Bap- 
lifm  of  John,  enquires  thus  of  the  Pharifees; 
"  how  could  you  think  that  Elias,  when  he 
*^  fhould  come,  would  baptize^  who  did  not 
''  in  Ahab's  time  baptize  the  wood  upon  the 
"  altar,  which  was  to  be  wafhed  before  it  was 
"  burnt  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  ?  But 
^*  he  ordered  the  priefts  to  do  that ;  not  once 
"  only,  but  he  fays,  do  it  the  fecond  time; 
"  and  they  did  it  the  fecond  time.  And  do 
*«  it  the  third  time  ;  and  they  did  it  the  third 
"  lime.  Therefore,  how  could  h  be  likely 
*'  that  this  man,  who  did  not  then  baptize^ 
"  but  afiigned  that  work  to  others,  would 
w  \\\v[i[t\^  baptize^  when  he  fhould,  according 
*^  to  the  prophecy  of  Malachi,  again  appear 
^'  here  on  earth  ?' 

We  find  in  the  firft  book  of  Kings,  xviir. 
33,  that  the  order  given  by  Elijah  was  to 
fill  four  barrels  with  water,  and  pourxi  on  the 
wood  and  on  the  burnt  offering.  This^owr-. 
ing  of  uatcr^  Origen,  that  accurate  fcholar, 
who  lived  in  the  fecond  century,  and  was 
well  acquainted  with  the  Greek  clafTics,  and 
Greek  Teflament.  calls  baptiz^ing  In  the 
very  fame  fentence,  he  makes  ute  of  the 
Greek  word  Baplizo  four  times;  twice  with 
exprefs  reference  to  the  Bapdjm  o{  John; 
and  twice  with  exprefs  reference  to  that  Bap- 
tifm  which  took  place  in  the  days  of  the 
Prophet  Elijah  ;  which  Bapiifm,  we  are  ex- 
prefsly   told,   was  not  performed  by  dipping 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 1^ 

the   wood   and  facrifice  into   water,  but  by 
pouring  water  upon  thera. 

It  is  alfo  evident,  even  from  the  frequent 
ufe  of  the  word  baptizo,  by  heathen  authors, 
that  it  does  not  always  (ignify  a  total  immer- 
fion.  Mr.  Walker  tells  us,  '•  ihat  Porphy- 
'•  rie  mentions  a  river  in  India,  into  which 
''  if  an  offender  enters,  or  attempts  to  pafs 
'•  through  it,  he  is  immediately  baptized,  up  to 
''  his  head ;"  (baptizetai  mcchn  KephaUs.) 
Here  a  perfon  is  faid  to  be  baptized,  although 
his  head  did  not  go  under,  but  remained 
above  the  water.  This  certainly  was  not  a 
total  immerfion. 

«'  He  alfo  inftances  a  cafe  from  Mr.  Syden- 
"  ham,  as  delivered  by  the  oracle  (viz.  afkos 
**  baptiziy  dunai  detoi  on  tkemis  ejli.'")  In  which 
inftance,  if  ^ww^i  fignifies  to  plunge  wholly 
under  water,  as  it  certainly  does,  then  baptize 
muft  fignify  fomething  lefs  than  a  total  im- 
merfion.  "  Baptize  him  as  a  bottk,  but  it  is  not 
*'  lawful  to  plunge  him  wholly  under  the  water," 
The  baptifm  here  defcribed,  refembles  that 
of  a  blown  bladder  or  bottle  of  leather, 
which  when  put  into  the  water,  will  not  fink 
to  the  bottom,  but  fwim  upon  the  top. 

The  fame  critical  author  mentions  an  in- 
ftance  from  Schrevelius'  and  Robertfon's 
Lexicons,  19th  chapter,  in  which  cafe,  the 
primitive  word  bapto  fignifies  a  wetting  with 
water,  that  was  certainly  lefs,  and  very  dif- 
ferent from  a  total  dipping  or  immerfion.. 
The   fentence   is  this  j  '("  Baptei  men  ajkon^ 


Il8  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  uddr  de  ngron  duneipote  )  He  indeed  baptizeth 
*'  a  bladder  or  bottle^  but  it  never  goeth  under  iht 
*'  liquid  u:ater,'^ 

To  thefe  inftanccs,  «we  might  add  a  well 
known  cafe,  taken  from  a  poem  attributed 
to  Homer,  called  the  battle  of  the  frogs  and 
the  mice,  in  which  the  lake  is  faid  to  be 
baptized  by  the  blood  of  a  frog.  (Ebapteto 
de  aimai  limiu  porphuno.)  This  lake  was  not 
dipped  into  the  blood  of  a  frog  ;"  it  was  only 
befpattered  and  tinged  therevviih. 

We  could  eafily  multiply  authorities  if  it 
were  neceffary.  It  appears  undeniably  evi- 
dent from  the  Greek  clafficks,  and  from 
learned  writers  and  commentators,  both  an- 
cient and  modern,  that  the  word  baptizb  has 
other  fignification^  bclides  that  of  a  total 
dipping  or  immerlion. 

The  moil  celebrated  and  refpeBable Lex- 
icographers and  criticks  have  often  tranf- 
lated  baptizo  into  the  following  Latin  words,. 
viz.  baptizo<i  viergo^  immergo^  tingo^  intingo^ 
lavOi  abluo^  niadefacioy  purgOy.  mundo.  No  one, 
I  prefume.will  pretend  that  all  thefe  words  are 
mentioned  as  being  perfe6lly  fynonimous — 
of  the  fame  meaning  cxaBly.  And  certainly 
if  the  word  baptizo  fignify  any  thing  lefs  or 
different  from  a  total  immerfion,  then  perfons 
may  be  baptized  in  fome  other  mode. 

Befides.  if  it  had  been  the  intention  of 
Chrift  and  of  his  Apofties,  to  fpecify  the 
mode,  or  to  have  rellriQed  all  chriftians  to 
one  and  the  fame  mode   of  baptizing,  they 


IN7ANT    BAPTISM.  11^ 

might,  for  this  purpofe,  have  feleQed  from 
the  Greek  language  words  of  the  mod  un- 
equivocal and  definitive  (ignification.  If  it 
had  been  their  intention  to  fpecify  the  mode 
o^fprinkling^  they  might  have  ufed  the  word 
Rantizo  ;  if  the  mode  of  pouring,  they  might 
have  ufed  the  word  Ekcheo  ;  if  that  mode  of 
bathing  or  w/j^/Zz^i?^, which  is  performed  by  the 
application  of  water  with  friftion  or  rubbing, 
they  might  have  ufed  the  word  Louo  ;  and  if 
it  had  been  their  intention  to  fpecify  the 
mode  of  dippings  they  m-ight  have  ufed  the 
word  Duptdox  Dund^  Sec, 

I  am  fenfible  it  has  been  objefted,  that 
the  word  diind.  fignifies  fuch  a  kind  of  plung- 
ing, as  drowns  or  deftroys  the  perfon  ;  but 
this  is  a  mere  evafion.  The  idea  of  being 
fufFocated  or  deftroyed,  is  not  implied  in  the 
meaning  of  dund.  This  word  may  be  applied, 
for  it  is  ftriclly  applicable,  even  to  ibofe 
creatures  and  things  which  are  not  liable  to 
fuflfocation.  or  to  any  difadvantage,  from  be- 
ing plunged  into  or  under  the  v/ater.  And 
as  to  the  word  diipto^  it  certainly  figr.ifies  io 
dip  or  ^/w;2je,  exclufively  ai.d  unequivocally  j 
and  without  being  fufpe8ed  of  having  any 
thing  elfe,  frigh[ful  in  its  (ignificaaon.  This 
is  what  Mr.  Booth  himfelf  feems  to  admit. 
But  the  infpired  writers,  when  treariiig  of  the 
Chriftian  Baptifm,  have  not  reftrifted  us  to 
any  one  particular  mode,  exclufive  of  all 
others,  by  ufing  a  word  that  is  decided  and 
limited  in  its  import. 


12:0  AN   APOLOGY    FOR. 

I  will  conclude  thefe  remarks  with  the 
following  very  pertinent  and  applicable  quo- 
tation, from  Mr.  John  Horfey's  defence  of 
infant  Baptifm,  viz.  "  That  Baptifm  is  an  e- 
«  quivocal,  open,  general  term" — "  that  noth- 
"  ing  is  determined  by  it  further  than  this, 
f^  that  water  fhould  be  applied  to  the  fubjeft, 
«  in  fome  form  or  other" — "  that  the  mode 
««  of  ufe  is  only  the  ceremonial  part  of  a  pof- 
*''  itive  inftitute  ;  juft  as  in  the  fupper  of  our 
^'  Lord,  the  time  of  day,  the  number  and  pof- 
«^  ture  of  communicants,  the  quality  and 
*'  quantity  of  bread  and  wine,  are  circumllan- 
*<  ftances  not  accounted  effential,  by  any 
"  party  of  Chriftians. — That  '^  fpr inklings 
'^^  pourings  ^nd  phmginr^  are  perfe8Iy  equiva- 
''  lent  and  equally  valid." 

The  aforefaid  authoriiies  have  been  men- 
tioned in  preference  to  a  hoft  of  others,  be- 
caufe  they  were^  generally,  the  very  fame 
perfons  who  had  been  named  by  you  or  Mr. 
Booth,  as  the  moft  learned  and  refpe^table 
authors.  And  it  appears,  from  their  exprefs 
teftimony  that  they  did  not  believe  the  mode 
of  dipping  was  eifential  to  the  Chriftian  Bap- 
tifm ;  but  that  perfons  might  be  baptized 
lawfully  and  validly,  and  according  to  ?he 
real  intent  and  meaning  of  the  original  words 
haptizo^  and  haptifyna^  by  having  water  poured 
or  fprinkled  upon  them,  in  the  name  of  tlu 
Father^  and  of  the  Son^  and  of  the  Holy  Gho^. 
1  am.  Sir,  See, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  121 

LETTER     XL 

SIR, 

X  AM  fenfible  it  is  pretended  by  fomc, 
^'  that  the  native,  primary,  and  only  proper 
*'  meaning  of  the  word  Baptifm,  is  dipping" 
"  — That  it  only  fignifies  wafhing  or  wetting, 
"  confequentially  and  improperly  ; — and  that 
"  it  is  only  fuch  a  wetting  or  wafhing  as  fup- 
"  pofes,  and  is  afFe6led  by  dipping  ;— and 
*«  that  the  primary  and  radical  fenfe  is  to  be 
^'  preferred  to  the  one,  which  is  fecondary 
"  and  confequential." 

Bur,  Sir,  we  have  no  certainty  that  dip- 
ping is  the  primary  and  native  fignification 
of  the  Greek  word  haptizo  ;  and  that  wafhing 
or  wetting  is  a  confequential  and  fecondary 
fenfe.  It  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Hemmenway 
and  of  other  very  learned  and  critical  wri- 
ters, that  wafliing  or  wetting  is  the  firfh  and 
original  import  of  Baptifm.  Wetting  appears 
to  be  the  efTtniial  idea^  which  is  always  con- 
nefted  with,  and  implied  in,  every  true  and 
^xo^QT  Water- Baptifm.  J  (hall  not,  however, 
contend  for  a  point,  which,  in  my  opinion,  is 
of  very  little  importance,  in  the  prefent  diu 
pute.  For  if  we  fhould  admit,  that  to  wet  is 
not  the  primary,  but  fecondary  meaning,  this 
Will  afford  no  proof  in  favour  of  dipping,  to 
the  excluiion  of  all  other  modes  of  baptizing. 
To  wet  may  have  been  a  very  common  and 
proper  fignincaiion  of  the  word  haptizo^  diH^ 


122  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

the  very  fame  fenfe,  in  which  the  Saviour 
meant  to  be  underftood  by  his  Apoftles. 
That  perfon  muft  be  very  inattentive  to  the 
nature  of  language,  who  is  capable  of  believ- 
ing that  the  naiive  and  primary  meaning 
of  words  is  the  only  meaning,  in  which 
they  may  be  commonly  and  properly  uf- 
ed.  The  original  fignification  is,  by  cuf- 
tom,  very  frequently  altered,  by  being 
enlarged  or  reftrided.  For  example,  '«  An 
«^  infant,  primarily,  fignifies  a  child  unable 
'«  to  fpeak  ;  but  we  underdand  by  the 
"  word  any  child  that  is  under  the  age  of  dif- 
"  cretion." — To  bathe,  in  the  primitive  fenfe 
of  the  word,  feems  to  imply  immerfion,  and 
yet  it  is  now  commonly  ufed  to  (ignify  any 
kind  of  wetting  or  wafhing,  either  by  dipping 
or  pouring,  or  by  applying  wet  clothes,  to- 
tally or  partially,  as  may  be  mofl  fuitable  and 
convenient. — The  word  Baptjl  primarily  fig- 
nified  a  Bapiizer^  or  one  who  adminijiered  the 
ordinance  of  Baptifm^  without  fpecifying  the 
mode  or  the  fubje6ls ;  but  it  is  now  common- 
ly ufed  to  fignify  any  perfon  who  denies  in- 
fant Baptifm,  and  holds  to  immerfion,  as  ab- 
folutely  effential. 

If  Chrift,  in  the  commiflion  which  he  gave 
to  his  Apoftles,  had  ufed  the  v;ord  diipio^  '\n- 
ftead  cf  haptizo  ;  or  if  he  had  commanded 
them  to  baptizv-,  by  dippings  then  the  mode 
of  Baptifm  v;ould  have  been  decided  and 
fixed.  But  haptizo  does  not  appear  to  be  a 
word  of  an  unambiguous  and  uniform  mean- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I23 

ing.  According  to  the  opinion  of  the  mod 
learned  and  fkilFul  criiicks  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, it  admits  of  various  figiiificaiions, 
and  is  not  reBrifted  to  any  one  particular 
mode,  in  the  application  and  ufe  of  water. 
Their  criiicirms  and  tedimony  aie  not  to 
be  defpifed  and  treated  with  contempt.  They 
ferve  to  refleti  fome  ufcful  light  upon  the 
rubje6l.  But  the  witnefs  of  infpired  writers 
is  of  higher  and  better  authority.  Scripiure 
is  the  bed  iiuerpreter  of  fcripiure. 

IF  there  be  any  dojbt  or  uncertainty*  with 
refpeB  to  the  raeaiiing  of  fcripture  words 
and  phrafesj  we  mull  compare  them  with 
Other  places,  where  the  fame  or  fimilar  ex- 
prelFions  and  pafTages  are  ufed,  and  the  fame 
fubjeBs  treated  of,  perhaps  in  plainer  lan- 
guage, and  in  a  more  intelligible  and  explicit 
manner.  Thus  the  word  baptize^  is  to  be  com- 
pared and  explained. 

But,  although  the  fcriptures  were  original- 
ly written  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  lan- 
guages, by  infpiration,  our  tranflators  were 
not  infpired.  Some  v;ords  are  not  exaftly 
tranflaled  ;  and  fome  words  are  of  fuch  a  na- 
ture, that  it  is  difficult  to  tranflate  them,  ex- 
atily,  into  another  language,  without  circum- 
locution. 

The  word  baptize^  is  borrowed  from  the 
Greeks.  Our  tranflators,  as  has  been  obfer- 
ved,  inftead  of  attempting  to  tranflate  it,  as 
in  other  cafes,  have  commonly  tranfcribed 
the  original  word.     It  therefore  becomes  pe- 


124  ^"^    APOLOGY    FOR 

culiarly  neceffary,  in  the  prefent  cafe,  for  us^ 
to  examine  the  original  texts.  But,  before 
we  proceed,  let  it  be  premifed,  that  I  fhallj 
for  the  fake  of  the  Englifh  reader,  who  is 
unacquainted  with  the  manner  in  which 
Greek  words  are  varied  in  their  terminations, 
commonly  mention  nouns  in  the  nominative 
cafe  of  the  fmgular  number,  and  ve7'bs.  in  the 
^rji  perfon  of  the  indicative  mood,  prefent 
tenfe. 

When  Chrift  commifTioned  his  difciples  to 
preach  the  gofpel,  and  inftituted  the  Chriflian 
Bapiifm,  he  commanded  them  to  baptize. 
Let  us  then  fearch  the  fcriptures,  not  after 
the  primary  or  fecondary  meaning  of  Baptizo'^ 
but  in  order  to  afcertain  the  fenfe  or  (enfes,. 
in  which  the  Apoftles  underftood  and  ufed 
the  word. 

The  \ioxd  baptizo^  is  derived  from  haptd<i  as 
its  theme.  Both  thefe  words  are  frequently 
mentioned  by  the  infpired  writers,  and  they 
both  merit,  on  this  occalion,  our  particular 
aiteniion  and  impartial  corifideration. 

The  word  bapto  is  ufed  fix  times  in  the  new 
Teftament  ;  and,  according  to  Dr.  Gale, 
whofe  Itatement,  I  believe,  is  corrcft,  "  it  is 
'•  ufed  nineteen  times  in  the  Septuagint  tran- 
''  flation  of  the  old  Teftament,  and  in  every 
'•  inftance,  except  one,  it  fignifies  to  dip." 

ill.  Matthew  XXVI — 23.  "  He  that  dip- 
"  peth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  difh." 

2d.  Mark  xiv — 20.  "It  is  one  of  the. 
^^  twelve  that  dippet-h  with  me  in  the  difh." 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  12^ 

3d.  Luke  xvi — 24.  '*  Send  Lazarus  that 
*•  he  may  difi  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water.** 

4th.  John  XIII — 26.  "  He  it  is,  to  whom 
"  I  fhall  give  the  fop  when  1  have  dipped  h,'' 

5th.  "  And  when  he  had  dipped  ihc  fop  he 
*'  gave  it  to  Judas  Ifcariot." 

6ih.  Rev.  XIX — 13.  ''And  he  was  cloth- 
''  ed  with  a  vefture,  dipped  in  blood." 

In  all  thefe  inftances  of  dipping,  the  orig- 
inal word  made  ufe  of  by  the  Apoftles,  is 
bapto.  The  fame  word  is  ufed,  in  the  old 
Teftament,  where  we  read  of  dipping  hyfTop 
in  water — of  dipping  a  cloth  in  water — of 
dipping  a  morfel  in  vinegar — of  dipping  a 
bunch  of  hyfTop  in  blood,  &c.  Now,  it  is 
evident,  that  in  all  thefe  inftances,  the  mode 
of  wetting  was  not  that  of  fprinkling,  or  pour- 
ing, but  that  of  dipping.  This  fad  is  afcer- 
tained,  not  by  finding  the  primary  meaning 
of  ^^/'.'j',  in  a  lexicon,  but  from  the  nature 
and  circumftances  of  each  particular  cafe,  as 
mentioned  in  the  fcriptures. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  in  all  tbofe  places,  in 
the  old  and  new  Teftament,  m  which  the 
mode  of  wetting  \^diS  ^certainly  and  unquejiiona- 
hly  that  of  dipping,  the^  Prophets  and  Apof- 
lles  have  invariably  ufed  the  word  hapto. 

From  hence  the  Baptifts  infer,  that  baptizo 
alfo,  muft  always  fignify  to  dip  ; — that  if  bap- 
to'f  the  primitive^  the  ^gemis,  as  ihey  fometimes 
term  it,  fignify  to  dip,  according  to  the  moft 
common  ufe  of  the  word,  then  baptizo,  a  de- 
rivative^ a  /pedes,  muft  of  courfe  be  confider- 
L2 


126  AN    APOLOGY    FOR^ 

ed  as  being  exclufively  ufed  in  the  fame 
fenfe.  But,  Sir,  is  this  inference  grammati- 
cal and  juft  ?  or  rather,  is  it  not  abfurd  and 
ridiculous  ?  Does  it  not  entirely  confound 
and  annihilate  the  diftinftion  between  the 
primitive  and  derivative — the  genus  and  fpe- 
ci^s,  and  render  the  v/ords  bapto'sind  baptizdy 
perfe81y  fynonimous,  even  in  their  conftant, 
or  mod  common  and  proper  fignification  ? 

Permit  me  to  enquire  further.  \{  haptizo^ 
when  mentioned  in  fcripture,  always  fignify 
to  dip,  as  has  been  pretended,  is  it  not  very 
ftrange  and  unaccountable,  that  this  word 
fhould  never  have  been  onu  ufed  in  any  of 
thofe  aforefaid  cafes,  where  the  mode  o/"c?zy^- 
j^zw^  was  certainly  and  indifputably  meant  ?^ 
Befides,  \^  iht  mode  of  dipping  be  abfolutely 
effential  to  the  Chriftian  Baptifm,  as  you  pre- 
tend, is  it  not  equally  Rrange  and  unac- 
countable, that  the  primitive  word  baptb^ 
fhould  never  have  been  once  ufed  with  refer- 
ence to  this  ordinance  ? 

It  would  not  be  improper  to  fay,  that  the 
root  includes  the  branches;  that  the  genus 
includes  all  its  different  fpecies  ;  and  that  the 
primitive  word  includes  all  the  words  de- 
rived from  it.  But  it  would  be  very  incor- 
rect, to  infer  that  a  certain  branch  included 
the  root,  and  all  the  other  branches — that 
a  particular  fpecies,  included  the  genus, 
and  all  its  oiher  various  fpecies;  or  that 
a  derivative,  included  the  primitive  wordy 
and  all  the  other  words  derived  from  it. 


>NFANT    BAPTISM.  I27" 

Eaptoh  the  primitive  word,  and  we  have 
fhown  from  cuftomary  ufage  in  the  facred 
fcriptures,  that  it  moft  commonly  fignifies  to 
dip.  Baptizo  \s\is  derivative,  terminating  in 
zo,  and  therefore,  according  to  grammarian?:, 
is  a  daninittive^  and  frequently  ufed  to  exprefs 
a  mode  of  wetting,  lefs  than  total  immerfion 
or  dipping. 

This  inference  is  fairly  drawn  from  the 
etpnology  of  ihe  word,  and  it  will  appear  ftiH 
more  evident,  when  we  fhall  attend  to  thofe 
feveral  places  in  the  New  Teftament,  where 
laptizo  is  ufed  by  the  Apoftle^. 
I  am.  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER     XIL       . 

SIR, 

At  is  well  known,  that  the  word  BiUe^  now 
fignifies,  and  is,  by  common  confent  and 
ufage,  reJlriHed  in  its  fignificaticn,  to  the  Book 
of  Infpiration.  The  word  Jcripture  is  alfo 
now  applicable  fokly  to  the  writings  of  in- 
fpired  men.  But,  as  thefe  words  originally 
fignified,  and  were  applied  to  any  other  book, 
or  writing  whatfoever,  fo  the  original  words 
baptize  and  haptijm^  which  are  now  appropri- 
ated exclufiv^ely  to  a  chriftian  ordinance, 
formerly  fignified,  and  were  freqacntly  ufed, 
even  by  the  Apoftles,  to  exprcls  other  wet- 


128  AN   APOLCTgY    for 

tings  and  wafhings  of  various  kinds.  This 
appears,  not  from  the  Englifh  Teftament, 
but  from  the  original  Greek.  For  example. 
The  wafhing  of  hands — the  wafhing  of  houfe- 
hold  utenfils  and  furniture — and  the  various 
wafhings  and  purifications  of  the  Jews,  are 
fometimes  exprefled  in  the  Greek  Teftament, 
by  the  words  haptizo  and  baptijmos.  Thefe 
Wafhings,  in  the  orig'nal  language,  are  flyled 
haptifnih ;  and  undoubtedly  the  modes  of  ap- 
plying and  ufing  water  in  baptizing,  or  wafh- 
ing thefe  different  articles,  were  as  various 
formerly,  as  they  are  at  the  prefent  day. 

It  is  faid  in  the  7th  chapter  of  Mark,  "  that 
"  the  Pharifees,  when  they  faw  fome  of  his 
^'  difciples  eat  bread  with  defiled  (that  is  to 
**  fay,  with  unwa/hen)  hands,  they  found  fault ; 
"  for  the  Pharifees  and  all  the  jews,  except 
"  they  wafh  their  hands  oft,  eat  not;  and 
*'  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
**  they  wa/h  (in  the  original,  except  they  are 
"  baptized)  they  eat  not."  It  is  alfo  faid  in 
Luke,  xi.  37,  "  that  a  certain  Pharifee  aflied 
'•  Jefus  to  dine  with  him.  And  he  went  in 
"  and  fat  down  tameat.  And  when  the  Phari- 
«*  fee  faw  it,  he  marveled  that  he  had  not  firft 
*^  wa/Jied  before  dinner."  The  fame  word  is 
made  ufeofin  the  original,  which  has  been 
noticed  in  the  preceding  paffage.  "  The 
"  Pharifee  marveled  that  he  had  not  been 
"  baptized  before  dinner." 

I  am  fenfible  that  you,  and  fome  other 
Baptift  writers,  pretend,  "  that  the  baptifm  or 


INFANT    BAPTISM^  I2f 

"  waffling  here  referred  to,  was  performed  by 
"  bathing  or  by  dipping  the  whole  body  into 
•'  water,  and  that  this  was  the  mode,  in  whicb 
^  the  Jews  were  baptized  or  wafhed,  efpecially 
'•  when  they  came  from  the  market,  as  thfy 
"  were  then  fuppofed  to  be  more  than  ordi- 
"  narily  defiled." 

But,  Sir,  this  pretence  proves  nothing,  iin- 
lefs  it  be  the  great  flraits  and  difficulties,  to 
which  the  Baptiftsare  reduced,  in  attempting 
to  defend  their  principles.  It  is  not  inti- 
mated that  our  Saviour  or  his  difciples  had' 
been  to,  or  that  they  came  from  the  market; 
nor  is  it  any  where  faid  or  intimated,  in  the 
old  or  new  Teftament,  that  the  Jews  did 
pra6llfe  bathing,  or  dipping  their  whole 
bodies  into  water,  before  they  dined,  or  eat 
bread.  Befides,  a  pra61ice  of  this  kind 
would  have  been,  in  many  inftances,  very 
inconvenient,  and  even  irapraciicable. 

Dr.  Pococke,  thai  .very  learned  divine,  has 
fhown  clearly,  from  the  writings  of  Maimon- 
ides  and  ocher  Rabbies,  that  the  Jews  never 
had  fuch  a  cuftom.  But  they  ufed  to  wafh 
their  hands;  and  he  exprei'sly  tells  us,  that 
the  mode  of  wafhing,  was  by  having  water 
drawn  or  poured  upon  them.  This  account 
agrees  with  what  is  faid  in  2  Kings  iii.  11, 
EliJJia  poured  water  upon  the  hands  cf  Elijah. 
It  alfo  agrees  well  with  the  original  word^ 
which  is  not  ufed  in  the  a8ive,  but  in  the 
pajfive  voice;  a  circumftance,  which  feems 
loiudicate  that  the  water  was  applied  to  their 


130  AN    APOLOGY    FOR. 

hands  by  fome  other  perfon  ;  or  elfe  that  it 
was  drawn  out  upon  them,  by  means  oF  fome 
contrivance,  provided  for  that  purpofe. 

This  opinion  is  farther  corroborated  by 
xht  form  and  conflru8ion  of  thofe  water  pots 
which  were  made  for  the  purpofes  of  their 
various  purifications — We  are  told,  "  there 
'•  were  fet  at  a  certain  nvarriage  in  Cana  of 
■'•  Galilee.  Cix  water  pots,  according  to  the 
^*  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews." 
Thefe  water-pois  being  filled  with  water, 
which  was  afterward  in  a  miraculous  manner 
turned  into  wine  by  our  Saviour,  he  ordered 
them  to  draw  it  off,  and  bear  it  to  the  gov- 
ernour.  He  did  not  dire6l  them  to  dip  it 
out,  but  to  draw  it  ofF.  Thefe  large  pots  or 
pitchers  were  not  intended  as  baths,  to 
plunge  or  bathe  the  whole  bady  in,  but  for 
the  cuftomary  waf])ings  and  purifications  of 
the  Jews;  and  in  particular,  for  the  purpofe 
of  wafhing  their  hands;  and  perhaps  occa- 
fionally  their  faces  and  their  feet;  and  it 
feems  thefe  pots  were  provided  with  cocks,. 
or  with  fome  fuitable  contrivance,  in  order 
to  draw  or  pour  ofF  the  water  upon  their 
bands,  or  into  foirje  frnallcr  veiTel  for  the 
common  ufes  of  purifying. 

The  learned  compilers  of  the  Di61ionary 
of  Bible,  inform  us,  "  that  the  Hebrews  had 
'•  an  infinite  number  of  purifications.  For 
^'  example,  they  did  not  fo  much  as  eat,  nor 
*'  even  fit  down  to  a  table,  till  after  they  had 


IMTANT    BAPTISM.  I3I 

^«  wafhed  their  hands,  hy  pouring  water  from 
«'  their  fingers'  ends  up  to  their  elbows." 

The  pharifees  did  not  find  fault  with  the 
difciples,  and  marvel  at  thj^aviour,  becaufe 
they  refufed  to  dip  themfeWes,  or  to  be  dip- 
ped all  over  u-nder  water,  before  dinner;  it 
^vas  becaufe  tbev  neglected  to  be  baptized — 
n?gle6led  to  walh^y^eir  hands.  For  the  phar- 
ifees and  all  the  Jezvs^  except  they  wafli  their 
hands  oft^  eat  not.  Accordingly,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  new  Teftament,  a  man  is  faid 
to  be  baptized,  when  only  a  fmall  part  of  his 
body  is  walhed. 

It  is  alfo  obfervable,  that  the  word  (bap- 
tizo)  is  further  explained  by  another  Greek 
word  (nipto)  which  is  here  ufed  in  the  fame 
fenfe,  and  is  certainly  reilrifted,  in  its  figni- 
fication,  to  the  wafhing  of  the  hands.  It 
therefore  appears,  that  thofe  perfons,  who 
were  thus  wafhed,  by  dipping  their  hands  in- 
to water,  or  by  having  water  poured  upon 
their  hands,  agreeably  to  the  Jewifn  cuitom, 
are  faid,  in  the  original,  to  be  baptized  ; 
which  plainly  fhows,  that  the  Greek  word 
baptize,  as  ufed  in  this  place  by  the  i^pof- 
iles,  does  not  (ignify  to  immerfe  or  plunge 
the  whole  body  under  water. 

Saint  Mark  further  obferves,  «'  that  many 
"  other  things  there  be,  which  ihey  have  re- 
"  ceived  to  hold,  as  ihe  wafhings  (in  the  o- 
«  riginal  it  is  Baptifms)  of  cups  and  pors,  and 
"  brazen  vefTels  and  tables."  Thefe  fuper- 
ftiuous  wafhings  are  twice  expreffed   by  the 


'^:^^  AN    APOLOGY    FOU    ~ 

^Greek  word  (Bapiifmous)  Baptifms.  But  we 
have  no  evidence  ihat  thefe  wafliings  were 
performed  by  dipping. 

The  fmal!  cups  might  probably  have  been 
dipped,  partly  or  v;holIy  under  water  ;  but 
it  would  be  very  inconvenient,  and  even  im- 
proper, to  wafh  large  pots  and  kettles,  or 
brazen  veffels  and  tables,  in  this  way.^  The 
common  method  of  wafhing  fuch  articles,  in 
all  ages  and  countries,  has  beerr,  and  ftill  is, 
by  pouring  water  into  or  upon  them,  and  by 
making  ufe  of  friction,  rubbing  them  with 
the  hand  or  with  a  wet  cloth. 

St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  have  informed  us, 
^'  that  the  pharifees  and  all  the  Jews  were 
"  very  careful  to  be  baptized,  before  they 
^'  dined,  and  when  they  came  from  the 
"  market ;"  and  as  careful  to  have  their 
houfehold  utenfils  baptized;  but  they  have 
not  told  us  in  what  manner  thefe  Baptifms 
were  performed.  Tire  mode  was  probably 
various.  And  as  our  tranflaiors  have  tranf- 
cribed  the  original  word,  v/henever  it  had 
reference  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Chrijlian 
Baptifm^  fo  on  thfe  prefent  occafion,  they 
have,  vtry  properly  tranjlcted  it  into  the  En- 
glifh  word,  waJJiing^  which  is  equally  indefi- 
nite ;  forit  is  not  reftri6led,  in  its  fignifica- 
tion,  to  any  one  method  of  applying  and  u- 
fing  water,  but  is  ftriclly  applicable  to  af- 
peifion,  affufion,  or  immerfion. 

As  this  argument  is  of  confiderable  weight-, 
we  will  now    fee  how  you    and   other  Bi^p- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  1  3  3 

tift  writers  have  confidered  and  explained 
ihe  aforefaid  pafTages  of  fcripture.     You  tell 

us,  that  thofe  baptifins.,  viz.  "  ehaptijlhe^  in 
*'  Luke,  and  haptifmom^  in  Mark,  have  refer- 
"  ence  to,  and  mean  acerenioniaija  reiigiou?, 
^-  or  rather,  as  may  be  more  properly  called 
"  in  thefe  inftances,  a  fuperllitious  wafhing;" 
and  then  fay,  that  "  what  is  meant  by  a  cere- 
"  monial  wafliing,  may  be  f'een  by  looking 
•«  into  the  ceremonial  law." 

But,  Sir,  we  wifh  to  know  what  is  meant  by 
thofe  wafliings,  which  you  havejuftly  ftyled 
fuperjlitious.  Ii  appears  to  me  very  ftrange 
and  unaccountable,  that  you  and  Dr.  Gale 
fhould  refer  your  readers  to  the  law  of  Mo- 
{ts^  if!  order  to  prove  in  what  manner  the 
Jews  performed  certain  baptijms  or  wafhings, 
which  the  law  of  Mofes  had  never  required. 

The  Saviour  fays,  with  exprefs  reference 
to  thefe  wafhings,  that  the  Jews,  laying  afidt 
ihe  cojumandrnents  of  God^  held  to  the  traditions 
of  yyien ;  and  yet  you  and  Dr.  Gaie  have  point- 
ed us  to  a  divine  inftitution,  in  order  to 
(how  how  that  fuperftitious  people  waflied 
themfelvesj  their  hands,  their  brazen  veflelsj 
tables,  &c. 

Thefe  haptifiiu^  or  wafliiDg^,  were  evidently 
unauihorized.  The  palTdges  which  you  and 
Dr.  Gale  have  quoted  are  therefore  totally 
inapplicable.  We  will  nor,  hcwever,  paU 
them  over  entirely  unnoticed. 

Your  fiiil:  quotation  is  taken  from  Num. 
xix.  13.   •'  And  the  z\fd.n  y^txion^hdiW fpr inkle 


134  **»^N    APOLOGY    FOR 

*'  Upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on 
"  the  feventh  day;  and  on  the  feventh  day 
"  he  fhall  purify  himfelf,  and  wa(h  his  clothes, 
*'  and  fhall  bathe  himfelf  in  water,  and  fnall 
"  be  clean  at  even."  This  purification  was 
appointed  for  thofe  perions  who  had  been 
polluted  by  touching  a  dead  body,  or  fome 
unclean  thing. 

The  very  text  that  you  have  cited,  enjoins 
JprinkUng  as  well  as  bathing  ;  and  if  you  had 
looked  into  the  verfes  immediately  preceding 
and  facceeding  ii,  you  would  have  found 
JprinkUng  repeatedly  and  exprelsly  required, 
as  being  abfolutely  eilential  to  their  purifica- 
tion. The  words  of  Mofes  are  as  follow — 
'•  and  a  clean  perfon  fliali  take  hvffop  and  dip 
*•  it  in  the  water,  and  ^dW  fprinkk  it  upon  the 
"  tcnt<i  and  upon  all  the  vejfcls^  and  upon  all 
'' the  perfons  that  are  there.  But  the  man 
"  who  fhall  be  unclean,  and  fiiall  not  purify 
"  himfelf,  that  foul  (hall  be  cut  off  from 
''  among  the  congregation,  becaufe  he  hath 
''  defiled  the  fan6luary  of  the  Lord ;  the 
*'  water  of  feparation  hath  not  been  fprinkkd 
*•  upon  /jm,  he  is  unclean.'' 

According  to  the  aforefaid  reprefentation, 
we  find  two  modes  of  purifying  exprefsly 
enjoined,  viz.  bathing  and  fpiinkling.  We 
alio  find  two  diftinft  perions  exprelsly  men- 
tioned. One  of  thefe  perfons  was  to  be  the 
fubje6l  of  purification,  by  fprinkling,  and  the 
other,  by  bathing;  but  it  does  not  appear, 
that  the  fame  perfon  was  to  be  both  fprink- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  1  35 

led'  and  bathed.      The  unclean  perfon  was  to  oe 
ckanfed  by  fpr inklings  or  if  he  continued   un^ 

'clean^  to  be  denounced  and  a^.^  ojf^for  negkEl- 
ing  to  have  had  the  water  of  feparaiion  fprinkled 
upon  him.  He  is  not  blamed  and  condemned 
for  ne2le6lin<T  anv  other  rite,  for  no  other 
rite^wa.s  prefcribed.  But  the  clean  perfon^ 
who  performed  I'.is  fervice  o^  fpr inkling  the 
unclean^  is  fuppofed  to  have  contraBed  fome 
degree  of  ceremonial  po!lu:ion.  He  fhall 
therefore,   "  on  the  feventh   day  purify  him- 

fdf  and  fhall  iiajli  his  clothes,  and  hathe  hirnfelf 
in  zvater^  and  fhall  he  clean  at  evni.''  Thus,  that  - 
perfon,  who  (hould  fprifikle  the  unclean,  was 
required,  on  the  feventh  diy,  to  purify  an i 
bathe  hirnfelf  This  opinion  is  fully  confirmed 
in  the  2i(t  verfe,  where  a  part  of  the  fanae 
law  is  recapimlated,  in  order  to  fhow  that  it 
was  of  a  permanent  nature.  '•  x\nd  it  fhall 
"  be  a  perpetual  datute  unto  them,  that  he 
"  who  fprinkleth  the  water  of  feparation  fhall 
'*  wafh    his  clothes,,  and    he  that  toucheth   the 

^^  water  of  reparation  fhall  be  unclean  until 
^-  even."  I  have  made  thefe  remarks,  in  order 
to  correcl  a  miftake  of  Dr.  Gill,  who  feems 
to  imagine  that  nothing  could  have  been 
done  effe8:ually,  even  under  the  law  of 
Mofes,  without  bathings  which  he  fometimes 
very  improperly  calls  dipping. 

The  other  pa ffage,  cited  by  Dr.  Gale  and 
yourfelf,  relates  particularly  and  exclufively 
to  thofe  cafes,  in  which  veffels  of  a  certain 
defcription  fhould  happen  to  be  defied  by  the 


136  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

car  cafe  of  a  moife^  or  of  fome  iindean  animal. 
As  in  Levit.  xi — 32.  "  And  upon  whatfo- 
"  ever  any  of  them,  when  they  are  dead,. 
"  doth  fall,  it  fhall  be  unclean  ;  v;hether  ii 
'•  be  any  vefTel  o^wood^  or  raiment,  or  fkin,  or 
^'  fack^  whatToever  vefTel  ii  be,  wherein  any 
"  work  is  done,  it  (hall  be  put  into  ^ater, 
"  and  be  unclean  until  the  even."  The  vefTels 
here  fpecified,  were  made  o^  zuood,  or  raiment^ 
or  fkin,  or  fack  ;  and  although  it  be  further 
added,  "  whatfoever  veffel  it  be.  wherein, 
any  work  is  done,"  we  muft  ftill  confider  it, 
as  formed  of  the  aforefaid  or  o{ fiinilar  mate- 
rials ;  for  all  earthtn  vefTels,  we  are  informed 
in  the  very  next  verfe,  were  to  be  broken; 
but  if  made  of  different  materials,  they  were 
10  paTs  through  the  fire,  as  appears  from 
Numb.  XXXI — 21?  22,  23.  viz.  "  This  is  the 
"  ordinance  of  the  law,  which  the  Lord  com- 
'•  manded  Mofes.  Only  the  goM^  the  fiver, 
''  the  brafs^  the  iron,  the  /m,  and  the  lead  ; 
*'  every  thing  that  may  abide  ihe  fire  ye  fliail 
*•  make  go  through  the  fire,  and  it  fhall  be 
''clean;  neverthelefs  it  fhall  be  pin/fed  by 
*'  the  water  of  fefaration."  This  water  of  fe- 
paration  was  always  applied  by  fpr inkling. 

Thus,  Sir,  you  feem  deflined  to  argue  a- 
gainft  vourfelf ;  for  brazen  veffds^  and  pots,  and 
cups,  that  were  made  o^  iron,  or  of  any  hard 
materials  or  mettle,  that  would  endure  the  fire, 
were  not  to  be  cleanfed  by  being  put  into  the  water ; 
but  by  having  the  water  of feparation  fpr  inkle  d 
upon  them.     This  ''  water  was  to  be  fprinkled. 


IN  f  ANT    BAPTISJ^f,  I37 

"  Upon  fhcir  tcnt^^^  and  upon  all   the  perfons 
"  thcr?  in,  and  upon  all  rhe  vejph  ;"  but  wiih 

refpeft  to  tahks  and  benches,  the  law  of  Mofes 
is  filent. 

Dr.  Lathrop,  in    his  Trcatife  on  Raptifm, 
page  6,  firfl  edition,  tells  U5,  that  ^*  the  Jews, 
<'  by  divine   appointment,    obferved    divers 
"  kinds  of  purifications,  the  greater  part  of 
''  which    were    fprinklings.       And  thefe  are 
'«  exprefsly  called  Baptifms.     The  Apoftle.  in 
'*  the  9th  chapter  to  the  Hebrew^s,  loth  verfe, 
"  fpeaking  of  the  Jexuipi  ritual,  fays,  it  Jlocd 
^^  only  in  mtats^  and  drinks^  and  diverfe  wa/Jiings, 
^^  [QfVQtk^  diaphorois   baptifmois.    diverfe   bap- 
"  tifms.)    By  thefe  diverfe  Baptifms.  he  p'ain- 
*'  ly  means  the  various  ceremonies  of  fprink^ 
"  ling;    for  fo  he  explains    them   in  the  fol- . 
''  lowing  verfes.     The  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
"goats,  and  the  aJJvs   of  an  heifer  fprink'ing 
"  the  unclean^  fanfiifycth  to  the  purifyivg  of  the 
"  flejTi.     Mofes  took  the  blood  of  calves  and  goats 
"  xoith  water — and  fprinkled    the  hook  and  all 
"  the  p'.eple.      He  fprinkled  Ukewife  with  bloody 
"  both   the  tabernacle   and  all  the    vejfds  of  the 
^*  minifry.      And  alrn^-'ft  all  things   are.  by  the 
''  lazo^  purged  with  bloody  i.  e.  wiih  ihc  fprink- 
"  ling  of  blood.      Now,  as  the  Apoftle  fpeaks 
''  of  diverfe   haptifms^  and  then  irnrnediately 
*'  illuftrates  them  by  d'wQv^tfp) inklings,   and 
"mentions  no  other  purificailons  huifprmk- 
"  ling^^  as  inftances  of  thefe  diverfe  haptifms, 
*•  it   is  evident  that,  if  the  facred  writer  un- 
"  derliood  Greek,  (prink'ing  is  bc^ptiim."' 
M  2 


138  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

To  thefe  and  fimilar  remarks,  you  rep!)!. 
"  It  is  not  a  litil«  furprizing^  that  a  man  of 
'«  Mr.  Cleaveland's  good  fenfe  fliould  fay, 
"  and  that  Dr.  Lathrop,  and  other  men  of  e- 
*•  rudition,  fhould  Fallow  him,  in  faying, 
*'  thefe  different  fprinklings  in  the  13th  and 
"21ft  verfes  refer  to  Baptifmoisy  when,  had 
"they  looked  three  words  further,  they 
*'  would  have  found  them  to  be,  kai  dikamna- 
^^  Jifarkos^  the  literal  Englifh  of  which  is,  "  the 
"  ordinances  of  God  concerning  the  cere- 
"  monial  rites  of  bloody  facrifices."  This 
you  call  "  literal  Englifh"— ^wo  Greek  words 
tranflaced  into  eleven  Englifh  words — which 
appear  to  me  .more  like  an  expofition  of  the 
original  words,  than  like  a  literal  tranflation. 

What  you  call  ••  bloody  facrifices,"  were 
thofe  offered  vi8ims,  whofe  blood  or  aflies 
were  mingled  with  water^  and  then  fprinkled 
upon  the  book  and  all  the  people — Kpon  the  taber- 
nacle and  all  the  vejfels  of  the  yninijlry^  &c.  But 
you  teli  us,  '*  that  the  Apollle  makes  ufe  of 
"  the  word  fprinkled^  when  Ipeaking  of  the  ap- 
"  plication  of  blood;  and  fpeaking  of  the  un- 
"  clean,  fays,  they  are  rantized^  and  adds,  aU 
'•  moil  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged,  cath- 
'^  erizcd,  not  baptized  with  blood." 

IF  ihere  be  any  weight  in  thefe  remarks,  it 
is  beyond  my  apprehenfion.  They  Feem  to 
me  more  like  ranging  than  like   reafoniug. 

Sprinkling  expreffes  the  vicde^  in  which 
thofc  unclean  permns  and  ihings  were  bap- 
tiz.d ;   and  pitn.Jication  the  eff'tcl  of  their  hap- 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  1  Cf.; 

iifm,    Almojl  all  things  under  the  lam  were  purged 
from  their  ceremonial    polluuons,   by   being 
fprinkkd — baptized  with  blood. 

It  evidently  appears,  that  purifications  by 
fprinkling  were  intendt^d  by  thofe  diverfe 
baptifms.  For  the  Apodle  obferves,  with  par- 
ticular reference  to  thefe  baprtijms^  and  as  an 
explanation  of  what  he  meant  by  them,  "  if 
'^  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
'•  afhes  of  an  \\q\^q,t  fprinkling  the  unclean,. 
''  fanHifyeth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flefh,  how 
"  much  more  (hall  the  blood  of  Chrift,  &:c, 
''  purge  your  confciences.  &c  ?"  which  plain- 
ly (hows  that  thefe  purif  cations  by  fprinkling 
were  remarkable  inftances  of  ihofe  very  Bap- 
tifms or  wafhings  he  had  juft  mentioned. 

Bat  you  tell  us,  that  thefe  Baptfms  were 
bathings  ;  and  I  will  venture  to  add,  fpyink- 
lings;  for  the  Apoftle  fpeaks  of  ^zt;f ry^^  Bap- 
tifms, and  has  plainly  told  us  in  what  the 
difference  or  diverfity  confilted,  both  as  it 
refpefted  the  obje 6ls  of  Bapiifm  and  the  va- 
rious liquids  and  compofinons,  with  which 
they  were  fprtnkled  or  baptized. 

Under  the  law  of  Mofes,  the  obje&s  of  pu- 
rification or  Eap'ifm  were  very  numerous 
and  diverfe^  or  different^  as  the  word  properly 
fignifics.  For  not  only  the  people,  but  al- 
mofl  all  things  were  purged,  by  fp  inkling. 

The  liquid,  or  compofitions,  ufed,  v/ere  al- 
fo  very  different.  Sometimes  they  were 
fprinkled  with  blood;  fomeiimes  with  water, 
mixed  wiih  blood;  and  fomeiimes  with  watery 


1'40  AN    APOLOGY    fo^ 

mixed  with  the  afhes  of  a  facrificed  heifer. 
This  diverjiiy^  with  refpeQ  to  the  objeQs 
jprinkkd^  and  with  refpe6t  to  the  liquids  with' 
which  they  y^eve  fprinkled,  plainly  (hows  that 
thefe  different  fprinklings  were  thofe  divcrfe 
Baplifms^  mentioned  by  the  Apoftle. 

We  are  ready  to  admit,  that  there  were  two 
forts  of  ceremonial  waihings  among  the 
Jews,  bathing  diud  fprinklivg  j  but  if  the  Apof- 
tle, by  the  word  Baptifms^  had  reference  to 
mie  mode,  rather  than  the  other,  it  was  cer- 
tainly ^A^^  of  ^?7/?M?2^ ;  for  every  inflance 
of  legal  purification,  mentioned  in  the  con- 
text, is  of  this  kind.  He  has  not  fa  id  a  fingle 
word,  concerning  dipping  or  bathing.  It 
■vfould  therefore  be  perfedly  abfurd  to  fup- 
pofe.  as  Dr.  Gill  pretends,  "  that  by  thefe 
"  different  wailiings,  he  only  intended  diffe- 
"  rent  dipping.*;,  or  the  dipping  of  different 
•«  things." 

Under  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  the  Apof- 
tle tells  us,  there  were  divcrfe  Baptifms.  L^>- 
der  the  gofpel  of  Chrift,  h«^  fsp,  there  is  but 
one  Bapiiff*^  Under  the  law  of  xViofes,  the 
objeFiso?  Baptifm  were  numercus  and  different 
— mankind^  and  a  mullitude  of  other  things. 
Under  the  gofpel,  there  is  but  one  chjeH — the 
human  Jpc cits.  Under  the  law^,  the  water  made 
ufe  of  was  minghd  with  various  ingredients — 
with  blood  and  the  ajhes  oj  an  heifer^  for  the 
purpofe  o^  fpr inkling  the  uncUan.  Under  the 
gofpel,  the  water  to  be  applied  in  Baptifm,  is 
iinmixcd  and   pure. — The    prophet   Ezekiel, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  l^l 

perfonating  the  Saviour,  bath  prcdi8ed  this 
very  circumCtance, — Then  will  I  fp'' inkle  clean 
water, vpon  you^  and  ye  fliall  be  clean;  from  all 
your  filchiiufsy  and  from  all  your  iduls  ivill  I 
cleanfe  you. 

Thus  the  divrjity  of  Baptifrns  under  the 
law  ferves  to  explain  and  illuQrate  the  fiin- 
ph'city  and  onenefs  of  Bapiifm,  under  the  Gof- 
peh  Thofe  diverfe  Baptifms  were  fornetimes 
repeated  ;  but  the  one  Baptirm  under  the 
gofpel  does  not  admit  of  repeiition. 

1  know  that  fome  of  the  Baptifts  pretend, 
that  the  one  Baptifoh  "  means  one  mode  of 
"  baptizing,  to  the  exclufion  of  all  others; 
"  which  mode  is  thai  of  dipping."  But  it 
appears  from  what  has  been  faid.  that  this, 
was  not  St.  Paul's  meaning. 

Baptifrn^  and  the  Tnode  of  baptizing,  are  dif- 
tind  things.  The  Apoftle  does  not  fay  there 
u  but  on"  mode  of  baptizing. — There  is  only 
o?2e  Baptifm  ;  but  there  are,  ur;doubtediy9 
feveral  valid  modes  of  admiiiiilering  this  or- 
dinance. 

Under  the  law  of  Mofes,  two  difFerent 
modes  of  Baptifm,  or  of  facramental  purifi- 
cation, bathing  and  fprinkling,  v/ere  panicu- 
larly  pointed  out,  and  exprefsiy  enjoined. 

Under  the  gofpel  of  Chrifl,  no  particular 
mode  is  exclufively  fpecified.  "  Chrift  no 
^^here  requires  dipping,  but  only  baptizing." 

We  have  largely  proved,  that  the  original 
word  has  various  frgnifications.  It  cannot 
be  confidered  as  reflrifting  Chriftians  to  any 


1-42  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

one  particular  mode,  in  the  application  and- 
uTe  of  water,  in  this  religious  ordinance. 

This  one  Bapiifm,  of  which  we  have  been 
fpeaking,  is  the  rn/)^  appointed  token  of  regu- 
lar admiflPion  into  the  vifible  church  of  Chrift. 
St.  Paul  therefore  mentions  it,  and  urges  it, 
among  other  confiderations  of  a  fimilar  na- 
ture, as  a  good  reafon  why  chriflians  of  dif- 
ferent opinions  (hould  exercife  miiiual  ''/or- 
"  hear  mice  and  love^  endeavouring  to  keep  the 
"  unity  of  the  f pint  in  the  bond  of  peace.'"  After 
the  fame  manner,  he  alfo  reafons  in  his  firfl 
Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,.  i2ih  chapter. 
"  Now,  there  are  diverjities  o^ gifts^  but  the 
^•'  fame  fpirit — differences  o^ admimjlration^^  but 
^'  the  fame  Lord — diverjities  o^  operaticnsyhui 
^'  the  fame  God,  which  workeih  all  in  all  : 
"  For  by  one  fpirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
"  body^  whether  roe  be  Jews  or  Gentiles^  whether 
^'  we  be  bend  or  free^  and  have  been  all  made  to 
*^  drink  into,  one  fpirit.'* 

I  am,  Sir,  Sec, 


LETTER     XIIL 

XT  appears  evidently  from  the  preceding 
letter,  \\\2ii  perfons  are  faid  in  the  original  \.o 
be  baptized^  when  only  ihtw  hands  were  wafii- 
ftd,  and  probably  by  having  water  drawn  or 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I45 

poured  upon  them.     It  appears  alfo,  that  the 
wqfhings  of  houfehold  utenfils  and  furniture, 
fuch  as  brazen  vejftls  and  tables^   are    ftyled  in 
the   original,  haptifms.     Thefe   articles  were 
undoubtedly  wafhed  by  having  water  poured 
into,  or  upon  them  ;   for  the   mode   of  dip- 
ping   would   have   been   very   inconvenient 
and  improper.     Befides,   the   law    of  Mofes 
did  not  require  that    fuch    things  fhould  be 
put  into  the  watcr^  but  that  the  water  o\  Jepa- 
ration  (hould    be    poured    or  Jprinkled   upon 
them.      It  further  appears,  that  the  divcrfe,  or 
different  purifications  of  the  Jews  are  called 
bapcifms    in    the    Greek    Teftament;     which 
baptifms^  according  to    the  Apoftle's  own   ac  = 
count,   were  generally  performed  by  fprink- 
]ing»     Indeed,  this  is  the  only  mode  of  puri- 
fying, or  of  baptizing,   which  he  has  particu- 
larly mentioned.      We  therefore  infer,  that  a 
total   immerfion  is  not  elTential  to  the  fignifi- 
cation  of  baptifm  ;  but  that  a  perfon    or  thing 
may  be  baptized    by  pouring   or    fprinkling, 
as  well  as  by  dipping,  according  to  the  orig- 
inal meaning  of  the  word,  as  ufed  by  the  in- 
fpired  wriiers. 

In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  the  afore- 
faid  arguments,  "  you  and  the  Baptifts  affert, 
'•  that  thofe  purifications,  called  baptif?ns^  were 
*•  bathings  and  not  fprinkling^."  This  how- 
ever is  mere  afTenion — not  even  rendered 
plaufible,  by  any  kind  of  evidence. 

VS  e  have  admitted  that  the  Jewifh  purifica- 
tions  or   baptifms   were    performed   in  two 


-144  ^"N    APOLOGY    FOR 

dilFerent  modes,  namely,  by  afFufion  and 
bathing.  But  it  is  not  faid,  that  thefe  waih- 
ings  or  bathings  v;ere  performed  by  total 
immerfion.  The  Jews  were  not  required,  in 
any  part  of  their  religious  fervice,  to  dip  or 
immerfe  themfelves  wholly  under  water,  or 
to   be   thus  totally  immerfed   by   any  body 

In  fome  inftances,  the  law  of  Mofes  re- 
quired that  individuals  fhould  be  wafhed  by 
other  perfons ;  and  in  fome  cafes,  that  they 
fhould  bathe  themfelves ;  but  whether  thefe 
bathings  and  wafhings  were  total  or  partial, 
or  in  what  manner  they  were  performed,  no 
one  can  determine  with  abfolute  certainty. 
There  is  however  the  greatefl  probability 
that  thefe  bathings  were  not  always  total,  and 
that  they  v/ere  performed  in  a  method,  as 
different  from  the  prefent  mode  of  dippingj 
as  from  that  of  fprinkling. 

Thofe  various  purifications,  by  bathing, 
rinfing,  and  fpriiikling,  which  we  have  been 
confidering,  appear  to  have  been  principally 
intended  for  particular  cafes  of  occafional 
and  local  defilements. 

But  in  addition  to  thefe  purifications,  God 
ordered  Mofes  to  make  a  lover  of  hi  af^  and  to 
place  it  between  the  tabernacle  and  the  altar^  and 
to 'put  water  therein^  for  the  purpofes  of  pub- 
lick  and  official  wafliings  ;  as  we  find  record^ 
ed  in  Exod.  xxix.  4,  and  in  Levit.  viii. 
4 — 6.  And  thou  Jl: alt  bring  Aaron  and  his  fons 
to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle^  and  uajli  thtm  uiih 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  1^^ 

water.  And  Mofes  gathered  all  the  congregation 
'together^  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle ;  and  brought 
Aaron  and  his  fons.  and  wa/Jied  them  zvith  water. 
He  did  not  dip  them  into  water,  but  wafhed 
them  with  water. 

The  laver  was  not  a  concealed  bath,  but 
placed  in  the  moft  confpicuous  fituation ;  and 
this  wafhing  was  performed  on  the  moft  pub- 
lick  occafion.      We  have  no  reafon  to  think 
that  thefe  perfons  were  wafhed,  by  being  in- 
flantaneoufly  dipped,  with  their  clothes  on  ; 
and  certainly   they  were   not  dipped  naked. 
We  have  no  reafon  to  think  that  Mofes  wafh- 
ed their  whole  bodies,    but   only  thofe  parts 
which,   according    to    the   Hebrew   cuftom, 
v;ere  commonly  not  covered.      This   laver, 
which  God  commanded  Mofes  to  make,  and 
to  fill  wiih   water,   we  are  exprefsly  inform- 
ed,  was   placed  between  the  tabernacle  and  the 
aliay<)  for  Aaron    and  his  Jons  to  woJJi    their 
hands  and  feet  thereat^   not  therein,  but  there- 
^t,  or   therefrom,   as  the   original    word  fig- 
nifies.  Exod.  xxx — ig.       We  alfo  find  in 
the  40th  chapter  and  3ifl  verfe  of  the  fame 
book,  that  Mofes*  and  Aaron,  and  hisfons<i  actu- 
ally wajhtd  their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat* 
This  plainly  fhows,    that   the  laver   was  not 
ufed  as  a  bathing  or  dipping  place,  into  which 
their  whole  bodies  were  immerfed,   but  as  a 
publick  receptacle  of  water,  at  which  they  wafh- 
ed their  hands,  Sic.      The  brazen  fea  and  la- 
vers  of  the  temple  were  evidently  intended 
for  fimilar  purpofes.     The  lavers  leem  more 
N 


1^6  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

particularly  appropriated  to  the  wafliing  of 
the  facjifices  ;  and  the  brazen  fe?,  to  the 
wafhing  of  the  priefts.  As  in  2d  Chron.  iv 
—  6.  "Such  things  as  they  offered  for  the 
«'•  burnt  offerings,  they  wafhed  in  the  lavers, 
'^  but  the  fea  was  for  the  priefts  to  wafh  m." 
In  the  aforecited  pa{fao;es  in  Exodus,  where 
the  law  of  Mofes,  refpeRing  this  matter,  is 
fully  and  particularly  recited,  it  appears  that 
the  pofition  of  the  priefts,  when  they  wafli- 
ed  themfelves^  was  not  in,  but  at  the  laver. 
This^  circumftance,  as  we  have  already  no- 
ticed, is  twice  exprelTed  by  the  word  thersat, 
(According  to  the  Septuagint,  it  is  ex  autou^ 
and  in  our  Latin  bibles  ex  eo,  which  words 
properly  fignify,  therefrow.)  It  is  alfo  evi- 
dent, that  this  wafhing  was  not  total,  but  par- 
tial ;  as  we  find  recorded  in  Exod.  xxx-^ 
195  2O5  21,  "And  Aaron  and  his  fons  fhall 
^*  wafh  their  hands  and  their  Jeet  thereat, 
"  \'\'hen  they  go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the 
"  congregation,  they  fnall  wafh  with  water, 
''  that  they  die  not  :  and  when  they  come 
"  near  to  the  altar  to  minil'ler,  to  burn  offer- 
"  ing  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord;  fo  they 
''  fhall  lua/h  their  hands  and  their  feet,  that  they 
'•  die  not;  and  it  fliall  be  a  ftatute  forever 
"  to  them,  even  to  him  and  his  [Gcd^  through- 
"  out  all  generations." 

Thus  that  wafhing,  v»'hich,  in  the  very  in- 
ftitution,  was  made  abfolutely  efl.^ntial,  and 
which  was  to  continue  fo  long  as  the  Leviti- 
cal  Priefthood  fhould  laft,  is  /aiVr  mentioned 


rNFANT"    BAPTISM;  14/ 

as  being  performed  at  the  laver,  and  three 
times  mentioned,  as  being  reftritled  to  the 
hands  and  feet.  We  muft,  Sir,  believe  what 
Mofes  has  written,  notwithftanding  all  that 
Dr.  Gale  and  Dr.  Gill  have  faid  concerning 
the  prodigious  magnitude  of  the  molten  Tea, 
in  which  they  imagined  ''  the  priefts  were 
totally  immerfed."  The  place  and  veflfel, 
at  which  they  now  waO^ed,  were  different  ; 
but  the  parts  wafhed,  and  the  manner  of 
w^aOiing  them,  were  tindoabtedly  the  fame. 
More  water  was  needed  for  the  fei  vice  of 
the  temple,  than  for  the  fervice  of  the  taber- 
nacle. The  teraple  was  accordingly  furniOi- 
ed  wiih  ten  lavers,  arid  a  fai  iiiade  of  brafs. 
Thcfe  capacious  veficls  (erved  as  refervoirs, 
from  wlu'ch  ilie  iinallcr  veifcls — the  pets,  the 
^ajx'/i,  and  hafons,  were  probably  fupplied  with 
water,  for  various  wafhings  and  fprinklings. 

By  a  very  common  figure,  a  part  is  often  put 
For  the  whole.  A  perlon  is  faid  to  be  wafli- 
ed,  when  the  v/afhing  extended  only  to  the 
hands,  or  to  thole  parts  of  the  body  which 
are  ufually  naked.  Accordingly,  the  Jew- 
ifh  priefts  were  faid  to  be  wafhed,  when  the 
wafhing,  extended  only  to  their  hands  and 
feet.- 

We  are  not  particularly  informed,  by  the 
facred  penman,  in  what  manner  they  w^afhed 
on  thefe  occafions ;  but  learned  commenta- 
tors and  hiftorians  inform  us,  that  the  brazen 
fea  and  lavers  were  provided  with  cocks,  in 
order  to  draw  out  water,  for  the  parpofe  of 


148  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

wafhing  their  bands  and  feet,  and  other  occa- 
fional  ufes. 

Thefe  remarks  prepare  the  way  for  other 
obfervations  of  greater  importance,  in  the 
prefent  controverfy.  I  mean  that  folemn^ 
inaugural  purification,  or  haptifin^  which  was. 
adminiftered  to  Aaron  and  his  Tons,  by  Mo- 
{^s  him felf. 

The  wafhing,  we  have  already  confidered, 
was  frequently  repeated.  The  Levites  were 
not  allowed  to  approach  the  altar,  or  tread 
the  facred  floor  of  God's  tabernacle  and  tem- 
ple, and  handle  holy  things,  until  they  had 
firft  wafhed  their  hands  and  / ei.  But  the 
wafhing,  which  was  adminiftered  at  the  tiine 
of  their  inauguration,  was  not  reftri6ied  to 
their  hands  and  feet,  nor  was  it  to  be 
repeated. 

Mofes,  we  are  informed,  was  expressly  or- 
dered to  bring  Aaron  and  his  fans  to  the  door 
cj  the  tabernacle^  and  wa/h  them  with  water. 
We  are  particularly  told,  that  he  performed 
this  fervice  ;  that  he  a8ually  ajfenibled  the 
whole  congregation^  and  in  a  folemn,  pub  lick 
manner,  waJJicd  them  with  water. 

But.  Sir,  this  wafhing,  or  baptifm,  v/as  un- 
doubtedly performed  by  fprinkling.  We 
find  fprinkling  explicitly  enjoined  as  the  very 
mode,  in  which  the  water  of  purification 
fhould  be  applied,  at  the  lime  of  their  confe- 
cration.  As  in  the  8th  chapter  of  Numbers, 
and  the  7th  verfe.  The  whole  chapter  has 
particular  reference   to   the   feparation,  the 


¥MFANT    BAPTISM,  14^ 

confccratiop,  and  purification,  of  the  Levitcs, 
We  are  informed  that  they  were  not  allowed 
to  officiate,  until  twenty  ayid  Jive  years  eld  and 
iipzvard ;  nor  were  they  permitted  to  under- 
take the  facerdoial  office,  until  purified^  as 
the  law  required.  Mofes  is  repeatedly  and 
exprefs'y  commanded  to  cleanfe  and  purify 
thnn  ;  "  and  thus^'''  fays  God,  "  thou  fh alt  do 
"  unto  them  to  cleanfe  them  :  fprinkk  uater  of 
''^purifying  upon    them.'' 

In  addition  to  this,  they  were  direfted  to 
"(have  all  their  flefh,  and  waih  their  clothes, 
"  and  make  themfelves  clean  ;'*  and,  as  we 
have  obferved,  v/henever  they  were  about 
lo  approach  the  altar,  or  enter  the  tabernacle, 
they  were  required  to  waih  their  hands  and 
feet.  But  that  walhing,  or  baptifm,  which 
Mofes  adminiiiered,  and  which  was  the  (ol- 
emn,  publick  rite,  that  inaugurated  and  fe- 
parated  them  to  the  fervice  of  the  fantluary, 
was  performed  by  fprinkUng.  "  Thou  (halt 
**  cleanfe  them,  fays  God,  and  thus  (halt  thou 
''  do  unto  them,  to  cleanfe  them  ;  fprinkk  the 
''  water  cf  purifying  upon  the7n.'' 

Our  Saviour  was  undoubtedly  baptized  in 
conformity  to  this  precept  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment affords  very  ftrong,  prefumptive  evi- 
dence, that  his  baptifm  was  adminiftered  by 
fprinkling.. 

John,  at  firft,  appeared  to  hefitate.  '•  It 
«■  becomes  us,"  faid  Chriu,  "to  fulfil  allrighte- 
"  oifnefs''  He  had  particular  reference  to 
tf//  the  rites  of  the  Mofaic  difpenfation.     Ac- 

N2 


150  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

cordingly,  when  eight  days  old^  he  was  ciraim- 
cifed.  And  as  foon  as  the  days  of  his  mother's 
purification  were  aceompli/hed.  according  to  the 
lav  of  Mofes,  being  ihe  firft  born,  "  they 
"  brought  him  to  the  tennple  and  presented 
''  him  to  the  Lord."  When  twelve  years  old> 
he  came  with  his  parents  to  Jerufalem  to  ob- 
ferve  the  pafTover.  And  when  about  thirty 
years  old,,  he  was  baptized.  Although  he 
defcended  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  ex- 
pe6led  to  be  a  prieft,  after  the  order  of  MeU 
chizedek,  he  would  not  undertake  the  facer- 
dotal  office  until  inaugurated  by  baptifm,  as 
the  Levitical  law  required. 

As  the  Jewifh  purifications  are  denominat- 
ed baptifms^  by  the  Apoftle,  fo  that  baptifm^ 
which  Chrift  inftituted,  is  properly  the  chrif 
tian  purification.  As  the  word  (Loud)  is 
commonly  made  ufe  of  in  the  old  Teftament 
by  the  feventy  for  bathing  or  wafhing,  fo  it  is 
fuppofed  to  be  fometimes  ufed  in  the  New 
Teftament,  for  the  Chrifiian  Baptifm;  and 
on  this  circumftance,  you  and  the  Baptift  ap- 
pear to  lay  much  ftrefs,  as  if  it  were  a  very' 
powerful  argument  in  proof  of  the  neceffity 
of  to?al  immerfion. 

We  have  already  fhown  that  the  ceremo- 
nial wafhings  of  the  Jews  were  various ;  and 
that  they  were  performed  by  fprinkling,  and 
bathing,  and  rubbing  with  the  hand. 

The  word  Loiio^  is  generally  made  ufe  of 
to  exprefs  that  kind  of  bathing,  or  wafhing, 
which  is   performed  by    fridion  or  rubbing> 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I5I 

But  Loub  is  very  feldom  if  ever  ufed  for  the 
Chriftian  Baptifm.  There  are  but  four  in- 
fiances,  in  which  it  is  pretended  that  thi* 
word  is  thus  ufed  ;  and  in  thefe,  it  is  conneft- 
ed  wiih,  and  explained  by,  the  word  Jprinh 
ling. 

The  Apoftle,in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews, 
X.  22,  fays,  "  Let  us  draw  near,  having  our 
^^  hearts  fprinkUd  from  an  evil  ccnfcience,  and 
"  our  bodies  zva/hed  with  pure  water."  Titus, 
iii.  5,  «'  He  hatJi  faved  us  by  the  zua/hing  of 
"  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
"  Ghoft,  which  he  hath  /hed,''  or  poured  '•  on 
"  us.'* — Eph.  v.  26.  "  That  he  might  fandify 
"  it,  having  cleanfed  it  (meaning  the  church) 
'•  with  the  wafhing  of  water  by  the  word.** 
ift  Cor.  vi.  11,  "  But  ye  a7'e  vjajli-d^  hut  ye 
"  are  JanBiJied. 

Now  the  "  Blood  of  Chrift  which  cleanfeth 
«  from  all  fin,"  is  ftyled  the  blood  of  fprink- 
ling.  The  fanQifying  influences  of  God's 
fpirit  are  reprefented  as  '•  being  Jhtd^  or 
^^  poured  out  like  rain  on  the  mown  grafs,  and 
"  like  (bowers  that  water  the  earth."  St. 
Paul  tells  us,  that  fprinkling  fauBiJitth  to  the 
purifying  of  the  ftejh, — Be  baptized  and  wajit 
azvay  your  fins, — Be  baptized  for  the  remiffion  of 
fins.  This  external  mater  baptifm  very  natu- 
rally reprefents  the  deanfng  effficacy  of  Chrifl's 
Hood  and  fpirit ;  whofe  blood  is  faid  to  be 
fprinkhd^  and  whofe  fpirii  fs  faid  to  be  poured 
out  upon  us. 


153^  AN    APOLOGY    FOR' 

¥/e  are  faid  to  be  "  vqPied  from  our  fins 
*^  in  the  blood  of  Chrift;"  but  the  applica- 
tion of  his  blood  is  exptefTed  hy  fpr inkling, 
Chriftians  are  ftyled  ''  Elefl,  according  to 
**  the  foreknov/le^ge  of  God,  through  fan6li- 
"  fication  of  the  fpirit  unto  obedience,  and 
*•  the  fprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Chrift." 
^'  Ye  are  come  to  jefus,  the  mediator  of  the 
"  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  o\ [prink- 
"  ling^  &c. 

1  have  often  heard  the  Bapt'ft  fay,  with  an 
air  of  triumph,  i\\2ii  fprinkling  is  not  wafhing  ; 
and  with  equal  propriety,  we  might  add,  that 
dipping  h  not  wafhing;  for  who  ever  fup- 
pofed  any  thing  wafbed,  by  being  only  dipped 
into  water,  efpecially  if  that  thing  were,  at 
the  fame  time,  covered  v;ith  fomething  elfe. 
The  ufual  mode  of  wafhing,  in  order  to 
cleanfe  any  perfon  or  thing  from  dirt  and 
fihh,  I  will  venture  to  fay,  is  as  different  from 
the  modern  method  o^ dippings  as  from  that  of 
Jp ■■inkling.  But,  Sir,  the  purification  under 
confideration,  is  of  an  external  and  fpiritual 
nature,  and  does  not  depend  upon  the  quan- 
tity of  water,  or  manner  of  r.pplying  it.  In- 
deed, the  whole  ocean  would  be  inadequate. 
But  the  fprinkling  of  Chrift's  blood  is  fuffi- 
cient ;  and  the  fprinkling  of  water  is  a  fuffi- 
cient  and  very  fuitable  fymbol  to  reprefent 
his  fprinkkd  "  blood,  which  cleanfeih  from 
"  all  fiD." 

I  am,  Sir,  &c. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1^^ 

LETTER     XIV. 

SIRy 

A  FIMD  the  Greek  word  3^/?^zzt^,  bn t  twice- 
ufed  in  the  Septuagint.  The  firft  inPiance  is 
in  the  fecond  book  of  Kings,  v.  14.  The 
pafTage  has  reference  to  Naa:Tian's  wafhing 
himfelf  in  Jordan;  which  v/afhing  is  four 
times  mentioned  in  this  chapter  ;  once  in 
the  command  of  the  Prophet;  once  in 
Naaman's  refufal ;  once  in  the  advice  of  his 
ferv'ant ;  and  once  in  his  aQual  compliance. 
In  the  three  firft  inftances,  it  is  expreiTed  by 
loud,  and  in  the  lad,  by  bapiizo.  We  have 
already  obferved,  thai  /owo  has  reference  to 
that  kind  of  wafhing  which  is  commonly  per- 
formed by  rubbing,  wiih  a  defign  to  make 
clean  the  perfon  or  thing  thus  wafhed.  The 
idea  or  notion  of  a61ual  cleanfing  is  there- 
fore radical,  and  feems  eiTential  to  the  figni- 
fication  of  the  word  loud.  For  example, 
Mofes  was  di reeled  to  xvajh  the  Levites.  This 
waj}nng  is  afterward  exprelTed  by  ckaiijing^ 
and  the  manner  in  ''  which  he  fhould  ckanfe 
''  them  was  by  fpr  inkling  the  uater  of  purifying 
**  upon  them,'"  Thus  David  prayed  in  the  51(1 
Pfalm,  "  xva/Ji  me  thoroughly  from  mine  in- 
''  iquity,  and  ckanfe  mt  from  my  fin."  Which 
pafTage  is  thus  explained,  in  the  feventh 
verfe  :  ''  Purge  me,  (or,  as  it  is  in  the  Greeks 
^^fprinklc  mej   with  hyfTop,   and   I    fhall  be 


1^4  ^^    APOLCfCY    FOR 

^  clean  ;  wa/k  me,  and  I  (hall  be  whiter  than 
"  fnow." 

Naamanwas  commanded  towafh  orcleanfe 
himfelf  in  or  at  Jordan  ;  and  the  manner  of 
cleanfing  is  particularly  defcribed  in  Levit. 
XIV — J.  "And  he  fnall  fprinkle  upon  him 
*'  that  is  to  be  cleanfed  from  the  leprofy  feven 
'•  times^  and  fliall  pronounce  him  chan^  &:c." 
Naaman  was  undoubtedly  acquainted  wiih 
the  law  of  Mofes ;  and  expe^^ed  to  be  clean- 
fed  conformably  to  the  mode  of  fprinkling 
therein  provided  ;  for,  we  are  told,  he  veri- 
ly "  thought  the  prophet  would  come  out  to 
"  hinj — and  flrike  his  hand  over  the  place^  and: 
^•^  recover  the  leper."  But  the  Syrian  cap- 
tain v»7as  difappointed,  and  the  difoppoint- 
ment  greatly  enraged  him.  Elifha  ordered 
him  to  go  and  it*^ ,,  c r  c  1  e a n  fe  ^ ^'^J^lf'^  ^^  J^ ^* 
dan;  and,  v^^e  are  told,  that  he  finally  went,, 
and  aBually  baptized  himfdf  Jeven  iimes^  accord- 
ing  to  the  faying  of  the  man  of  God. 

The  law  required,,  that  the  leper  (hould  be 
fprinkled  feven  times  over  running  zvater^  which 
was  the  reafon  why  he  was  fent  to  the  river 
Jordan.  Naam.an  aBualiy  baptized  himfelf 
feven  times.  Ij^  it  not  very  natural  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  he  took  water  in  his  hand^  and  ap- 
plied it  feven  time.<  to  his  own  body,  or  at 
lead  to  that  ^^/-^  which  was  It^prous  ?  For  it 
feems  the  leprofy  wa>  not  univerfal.  This- 
i^  the  only  inftance,  in  which  our  tranflators- 
have  uTed  the  word  dipped.  In  the  older 
E.ngli(h  bibles,  the  place  is  rendered,  he  mafli- 


IN?  ANT    BAPTISM.  1.^5 

e 


td  himfelf  in  Jordan,  There  is,  however,  th 
greateii  probability,  that  Naaman  ^2.s  f prink - 
led;  for  it  is  faid,  in  the  Sepluagint,  that  he 
"  baptized  himftif  feven  times^  according  to  the 
^'faying  of  the  man  of  God  ;"  and  we  cannot 
beli«.  ve  that  this  man  of  God  would  have  or- 
dered difcvenfold  dippings  in  a  particular  cafe, 
where  the  lav  of  God  exprefsly  required  a 
feven  fold  fprirkling.  The  other  inftance  oc- 
curs  in  liaiah  xxi — 4,  and  has  reference  to 
a  fenfe  of  God"s  ang  r.  which  is  often  repre- 
fenced  ir.  the  fcriprures,  as  ht\r\g  poured  out 
upon  a  ptrion  ;  but  as  the  word  baptizo  is 
here  ufed  figuratively,  I  do  not  confider  the 
paflage  of  niiich  importance  in  the  prefent 
difpute. 

We  have  obfervcd  that  the  primitive  word 
baplo^  as  ufed  by  the  infpired  writers*  moft 
commonly  Ggnifies  io  dip ;  but  yet  there  is 
cue  very  remarkable  indance  in  the  Old 
Teftament,  in  which  iu  fignifica  ion  is  very 
different  from  that  of  dipping  or  immerfio'n 
— I  have  reference  to  the  cafe  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar ;  w^here  ic  is  laid,  '^  that  he  was  net 
"  with  the  dew  cf  heaven.''  This  inftai^ce  is 
the  more  remarkable,  as  the  word  baptd  is 
twice  meniioned  with  refpe6l  to  the  very 
fame  effecf,  as  you  will  find  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,  4th  chap.  33d  verfe;  and  5th  chap. 
21ft  verfe. 

Dr.  Gale  and  Mr.  Booth  have  told  us  mar- 
velous {lories,  about  the  wondeiful  great 
dews,  that  fometimes  faliin  thofe  hot  eaftern 


156  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

countries,  fo  that  poor  Nebuchadnezzarj 
«'  was,  as  it  were,  overwhelmed.'*  But,  Sirj 
I  can  fee  nothing  in  all  this,  that  even  looks 
like  dipping.  The  fa6l  is,  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  not  dipped  or  plunged  into  the 
dew  of  heaven,  but  the  dew  dijlilled  from 
heaven,  and  fell  upon  him  in  fmall  and  fre- 
quent drops.  He  was*  fp7^inkled^  and  in  that 
way,  wet — baptized  mih  lis  dijiillation.  Hence 
=we  infer,  that  as  baptize  h  derived  from  bapto 
its  theme^  it  fairly  admits  of  this  fame  fignifi- 
-cation.  You  feem  to  allow  the  premifes, 
but  deny  the  confequence ;  and  tell  us^ 
"  that  the  argument  is  of  the  fame  weight 
*'  with  the  following  ;  your  father  believes 
"  in  fprinkling,  as  being  Baptlfm  ;  you  are 
"  his  offspriirg,  and  canfeqoently  you  be- 
<«  lieve  the  fame ;  when  the  faQ  is,  you  are 
<^  largely  convinced  it  is  no  fuch  thing," 
Sir,  I  am  incapable  of  feeing  the  analogy 
between  the  etymology  ofa^reek  word, 
and  the  derivation  of  a  degenerate  fon,  and 
fhall  therefore  make  no  reply.  But  you  will 
permit  me  to  obferve,  that  \[  hapto.  the  primi- 
tive word,  iome times  13gnify /a  wet  hy  f prink' 
ling^  as  it  certainly  does,  then  we  may  fairly 
and  jiiftiy  conclude,  that  baptizo,  its  deriva- 
tive, will  alfo  very  naturally  and  commonly 
fignify  lojprinkle. 

1  am,  Sir,  Sec, 


INT  ANT     BAPTUSM.  1  ^J 

LETTER     XV. 

A  HE  next  argument,  which  I  {hall  men- 
tion, will  be  deduced  from  the  Baptifm  of 
the  Ifraelites,  when  pafling  under  the  cloud 
and  through  the  Red  Sea.  The  circumfLances 
and  mode  of  this  Baptifm  are  remarkably 
important,  and  merit  our  particular  confid- 
eraiion.  The  importance  appears  from  the 
very  manner  in  which  the  Apoftle  introduces 
and  relates  the  affair;  as  you  will  find  in  the 
firft  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians^  x — i,  2. 
"  Moreover,  brethren,  /  would  not  that  yt 
^^Jliould  be  ignorant^  \iO\^  that  a//  our  fathers 
^' were  under  the  cloud;  and  all  pafTed 
^'  through  the  fea;  and  were  all  baptized  ULio 
"  Mofes,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea." 

ChriRians  of  all  denominations  have  ad- 
mitted, and  will  admit,  thai  this  was  a  true 
and  proper  water  Baptifm,  although  exfraor- 
d'.nary  and  miraculous — all  will  alfo  admit, 
that  the  whole  congregation,  infants  as  well 
as  adults,  were  then  baptized.  The  only  quef- 
tion  therefore,  at  prefent,  is  refpe6ling  the 
mode  or  manner  in  w-hich  the  water  was  ap- 
plied. Now,  it  is  plain,  that  the  Ifraeli'es 
were  not  dipped  into  the  cl'-.^ud.  Infpiration 
exprefsly  fays,  they  were  under  tht  cloud — not 
in  it. — They  were  not  dipped  into  ihe  fea, 
nor  did  they  wade  into  its  waiersf  for  ia^ 
O 


158  AN    APOLO  GY    FOR 

fpiration  exprefsly   fays,     that    they    paffed 
through  on  dry  land. 

Although  our  tranflators  have  made  ufe  of 
the  Englifh  word  z?z,  (in  the  cloud,  and  in  the 
fea)  yet  it  is  worthy  your  notice,  that  the 
dative  cafe  in  the  Greek  language,  is  com- 
monly and  properly  ufed  inftrumentally  after 
the  prepofition  fen; )  as  in  Matthew,  xii.  27. 
"  If  I  by  Beelzebub  (en  Beclzcboul)  caft  out 
"  devils,  by  whom  (en  tini)  do  your  children 
"  cad  them  out  ?"  In  this  fhort  fentence,  the 
i/^/zt'd  cafe,  is  twice  rightly  ufed  as  the  inftru- 
ment,  after  the  prepofition  (in ;)  and  it  mighty 
with  the  greateft  propriety,  have  been  thus 
tranflated  in  the  pafiage  we  have  been  con- 
fidering. 

The  cloud  commonly  preceded  the  If- 
raelites,  in  order  todireB:  their  courfe.  But 
at  the  Red  Sea,  we  are  told  that  **  it  -went  from 
"  before  their  Jace^  andjlood  be  hind  them — between 
*'  their  camp^  and  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians^ 
In  thus  going  from  the  front  to  the  rear  of 
their  encampment,  it  probably  paffed  over 
their  heads  ;  for  St.  Paul  exprefsly  tells  us, 
that  they  all  were  under  the  cloud ;  and  were  all 
baptized  by  the  cloud.  They  were  undoubted- 
ly fprinkled  and  wet  with  or  by  the  drops  of 
rain,  which  defcended  and  fell  upon  them 
from  the  cloud.  This  conftruBion  is  the 
mod  natural  and  obvious  that  can  be  imagin- 
ed, aMTici  therefore  preferable  to  any  other. 

To  'this    Baptifm,    holy    David   feems    to 
allude  in  the   68th  Pfalm.     »  O  God,  when 


INFANT     BAPTiSM. 


^59 


"thou  wenteft  forth  before  thy  people — 
^'  when  thou  didll  march  through  the  wilder- 
**  ncfs,  Selah — the  earth  fliook — the  heav- 
"  en^,  2i\Co,  dropped  at  the  prefence  of  God. — 
'•  Thou.  O  God.  didft  fend  a.  plentiful  rain, 
"  whereby  thou  didft  coiifi'-m  thine  inheritance 
''•  when  it  was  zveary.''  \Vhile  they  marched 
through  the  Tea,  we  are  told  that  '•  the  w'aters 
^'  wQrc  congealed  inio  a  heap,  and  ft  )od  as 
"  a  wall  unio  them,  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
"  the  left."  The  waters  being  thus  divided, 
the  paffage  was  dry.  It  is  exprefsly  faid,  in 
F.^ur  different  places,  •*  that  [he  ground  —  that 
*•  the  land^  on  wbicn  they  zvalked,  was  dry.'' 
But  drops  of  rain  undoubtedly  fell  upon  them 
from  the  cloud;  and  /prays  of  water  were 
dafhcd  or  blown  upon  them  from  the  furface 
of  the  fea.  This  was  a  real  and  literal  baptifm, 
adminiftered  in  the  iiiode  oF affufion  ox  Jpr ink- 
lings and  by  the  unerring  hand  of  God  him- 

fclf. 

You  have  not  attempted  to  explain  this 
unpropitious  paffage.  Oiber  Baptift  writers 
have  tried  in  vain  to  prove  that  the  Ifraelites 
were  dipped  Dr.  Giil.  who  was  not  eafily 
woriied,  could  neither  untie  nor  cut  the  knot. 
Having  done  his  utmoft,  all  he  pretended, 
was  a  jeeming  immerfion.  They  had  the 
waters,  he  tells  us,  on  each  fide  of  them,  and 
the  cloud  over  them,  fo  that  they  zcere  as  per- 
fons  immerfed.  Speaking  of  their  defcent  into 
the  fea,  he  fays  "  they  fee7ned  as  though  they 
^' were  buried  in  the  waters  of  it;  and  their 


l6o  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  afcent  again  out  of  it  on  the  fhore,  has  a 

^' great  agreement  io  baptifm  hy  irrmerfion." 
What  ftrange  language  !  *'  They  were  as  per- 
*•  fons  immerfed  "  "  They  feemed^  as  though- 
'•  they  were  hMntdi  in  the  waters."  ^*  A  great 
'•  agrrement  to  baptifm  by  immerfion."  Ac- 
cording to  the  Do6lor's  own  account,  there 
was  no  reality  in  the  cafe — noihi ng  but  niere 
appearance.  ''  Theyfeemed  as  though  iheyzcere 
*'  buried,  in  the  waters. — Thev  feemed  as  though 
*•  ihey  were  baptized."  For  you  and  the 
Baptifts  tell  us  there  can  be  no  ?Ytz/ baptifm,, 
vi'hout  a  real  arJ  total  \\r\mQx^\on — that  it  is 
abfolutcly  neceffary  to  have  the  whole  body 
equally  dipped^  and  wet^  and  wajhtd  thereby,  in 
water.  The  Fcid  is,  Mofes  and  Paul,  have 
guarded  this  important  national  baptifm,  with 
fuch  uncommon  caution,  that  we  cannot 
very  eafily  evade  or  mifreprefent  its  mean- 
ing, either  wi?h  refpe6t  to  the  fubje^ls,  or 
mode,  in  which  they  were  baptized.  The 
fuhjcB.y  of  biptifm  were  the  whole  na'ion, 
adults  arid  infants ;  and  the  mode  was  certain- 
ly that  oi  off '.ifi on  or  fpr inkling.  As  wc  have 
obferved-,  God  fent  them  a  plentiful  rain^ 
whereby  he  di:i  conjinn  his  inheritance  v;hen 
it  was  wea-y.  Thefe  words  of  the  Pfalmift 
are  remarkably  applicable.  "  The  Ifraelites 
being  feparated  from  all  other  nations,  for 
religious  purpofes,  are  frequently  called  the 
heritage  and  inheritance  of  God.  Having, 
fled  in  hafte  from  Egypt,  and  being  purfued 
bv  their   enesnies,   thev   were    undoubtedly^ 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


161 


v[\\iq\\  fatigued.  Nothing  .could  be  more  de- 
(irable  than  a  xt^Tt^hing  JJiower  ;  efpecially 
when  we  confider  their  weaned  condition,  in 
a  hot^  dry  country,  where  it  very  feldom  rained. 
By  this  rain^  the  Pfalmill  fays,  they  were  con- 
finned.  He  ufes  the  very  iame  term,  which 
is  repeatedly  appHed  by  others,  and  even  by 
himfelf,  to  the  Abraham.ic  promife  and  cove- 
nant.  '•  Be  ye  mindful  always  of  his  cove- 
'•  nant ;  the  word  which  he  commanded  to  a 
"  thoufand  generations ;  even  the  covenant 
"  which  he  mads  with  Abraham,  and  his  oath 
"unto  Ifaac;  and  hath  confirmed  ihQ  fame 
'*  unto  Jacob  for  a  lax'^  and  unto  Ifrael,  for 
'•  an  everlafiing  covenant,''  This  is  that  cove- 
nant, which,  the  Apoftle  telis  us,  '•  was  con- 
''firmed  of  God  in  ChriR."  It  was  confirmed 
by  the  token  of  circumjciGon — con  finned  by 
the  oath  of  God,  and  confirmed  by  baptifm. 
The  whole  nation  was  baptized.  No  lefs 
than  Gx  hundred  thoafand  efFedive  men,  be- 
(ides  aged  msn,  women  and  children,  were 
baptized  in  a  miraculous  manner,  by  God 
himfelf. 

It  is  wonhy  our  particular  notice,  that 
baptifm.  the  ancient  confirviation  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  has  commonly  been  applied 
to  the  Gentile  profelytes,  even  from  the  days 
of  Moles  to  the  prefent  time.  Thofe  Gen- 
tiles who  embraced  the  Jewifh  religion, 
males  and  females,  together  with  their  in- 
fant children,  we  have  abundant  reafon  to 
believe,  were  baptized,  even  before  our 
O  2 


162  AN    A?OLOCY  FOR 

Sariour*s  incarnation  ;  and  fincc  that  period, 
the  fame  praftice  has  generally  obtained,  and 
is  ftill  continued,  among  profefling  chrif- 
tians. 

Thus  this  baptifin  of  the  Ifraelites,  con- 
cerniiig  which  the  Apoftle  is  not  willing  that 
wejhoiild  remain  ignorant^  \s  evidently  a  very 
important  and  inftruBive  event.  It  was 
typical  of  the  Chriftian  Baptifm  ;  and  points 
US',  not  only  to  adults^  h\x\.  alfo  to  infants^  as 
the  proper  fuhjcHs  ;  and  to  fprinklmg,  as  a 
proper  mode  of  baptizing. 

But,  Sir,  upon  your  principles,  this  impor- 
tant, national  baptifm,  appears  perfedly  in- 
explicable and  unintelligible.  You  cannot 
fay,  wnth  St  Paul,  that  they  all  were  baptized, 
for  this  would  imply  in/anl  baptifm.  You  can- 
not fay,  that  even  the  adults  waded  into  the 
fea,  and  were  baptized^  according  to  the  Bap- 
tifl  mvode  of  dipping.  The  Egyptians  were 
overwhelmed  ;  but  infpiration  exprefsly  fays, 
that  the  IfraeUtcs  went  through  on  dry  dry 
laad^  and  dryjhod.  It  is  certain  they  were  not 
dipped.  You  cannot  fay  that  the\  were  bap- 
tized vviih  rain  from  the  cloud,  and  with  [prays 
fiom  the  fea;  for  this  would  be  affvjivn  or 
Jprinkling.  All  th^it  )  ou  can  poffibly  fay  is, 
that  It  fetmed  like  baptifm.  This  manner  of 
cxpr-v  ffion,  however,  does  not  even  feem  to 
agree  with  .hat  St.  Paul  has  faid.  He  does 
not  fpeak  o^  3.fee7ni?2g,  but  of  a  real  baptifm. 
He  explicitly  declare^?,  "  that  they  all  were 
**  under  the  cloud,  and  all  palfed  t.hrough  the 


hNFANT    BAPTISM-.  1^3 

*<  Tea ;  and  were  all  baptized  in,  or  rather  by^ 
««  the  cloud,  and  ^jv  the  Tea."  His  language 
is  of  the  moft  general  and  pofitive  nature. 

But  I  can  difcover  nothing,  according  to 
the  baptift  principles,  that  even  looks  h'ke  a 
rtal  baptifm.  A  feeviing  immerfion  or  burial, 
without  being  wel  in  the  leaft  degree  thereby 
— without  having  fo  much  2iS  one  drop  of  water 
touch  them,  is  neither  conformabfe  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptifm,  nor  to  any 
mode  of  baptizing.  Dr.  Hemenway  juftly 
obferves,  "  that  if  a  perfon  could  be  baptized, 
*^  without  being  wet,  merely  by  having  water 
*^  round  him,  then,  the  dry  hold  of  a  fhip 
'*  would  anfwer  the  purpofe,  as  well  as  Jor- 
*'  dan." 

It  is  very  eafy  to  fee  where  the  difficulty, 
on  your  fide  of  the  queftion,  lies.  For,  if 
it  fhould  once  be  admitted,  that  the  Ifrael- 
ites  were  baptized,  by  being  aBua^lly  wet 
with  water,  every  body  would  fuppofe  the 
mode  was  that  of  afFufion  or  fprinkling.  It 
is  therefore  deemed  neceffary,  by  feme,  to 
fupprefs  the  very  idea  of  wetting — an  idra,  or 
notion^  abfolutely  ejftntial  to  every  valid  mode  of 
baptizing. 

We  are  often  told,  that  fprinkling  is  not 
baptifm;  "  that  a  few  drops  of  water  ^  poured 
''  or  fprinkled  on  a  perfon's  face,  is  a  mere 
*'•  nullity ;"  that  a  total  wetting  and  wafliiiig, 
by  dippings  is  indifpenfably  reqoifite,  in  or- 
der to  baptifm  ;  and  yet  thefe  very  people 
fcem  to  believe,  that  a  whole  nation  was  bap- 


164  AN    APOLOcr  FOR' 

tized,   while   pafTing    through    the    Tea,  by  a 
feeming  immerf.on^   without    being   v;et   at   aU 
thereby  ;  without  having  a  fingle  drop  of  its 
water  touch  them. 

You  will  perhaps  think,  that  I  have  dwelt 
too  long  upon  this  argument.  But,  Sir,  re- 
member, St.  Paul  confidered  the  baptifm  of 
the  Ifraelites.  ^^  the  cloud  andly  the  fea^  as  an 
event  of  great  importance,  and  was  very 
anxious  to  have  it  rightly  underftood. 
I  am.  Sir,  Sec, 


LETTER     XVI. 

SIR, 

1  jET  us  now  attend  to  that  remarkable  ex- 
preffion  of  our  Saviour,  Luke  xii— 50.  ''  / 
"  have  a  baptifm^  to  be  baptized  zuiih^  and  how 
'•  am  I Jlraightened.  till  it  he  accovipli/Jied  /"  As 
my  opinion,  relative  to  this  and  fimilar  paf- 
fages,  accords  with  Dr.  Hemmenway's,  I  fhall 
exprefs  it,  in  his  language,  he  being  an  au- 
thority of  great  weight.  "  Chrid,"  the  Dr. 
fays,  "  here  calls  his  fufferings  a  baptifm. 
'•  But  it  feems  to  me,  that  commentators  have 
"  miffed  the  true  interpretation  of  thefe 
«•  words.  They  fuppofe  the  baptifm  here 
''  fpoken  of,  is  to  be  taken  in  a  metaphori- 
«'  cal,  and  not  in  a  literal  fenfe.  Hence,  feme 
''  have  argued  in  favour  of  the  mode  of  dip- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  165: 

"  ping,  as  moft  fitly  expreflive  of  ibe  fuffer- 
*'  ings   of  Chrift,  who  was  plunged  and  funk. 
'•  in  anguifh  and  diftiefs.     Oihers   argue    as 
•'  well  and  as  fairly  in  favour  of  the  mode  of 
''  affufion,   as  expreffive  of  the  pourificr  out 
'•  the  curfe    of  God,    and    the    vials    of   his 
*'  wrath,   due   to  our  fins,   upon  Chtifl,   the 
'•  atoning   facrifice.       Thus   people,    expl-iin 
«  the  fuppofed  metaphor,  according  to  their 
"different  views.      But  rnethink^  the   plain,. 
"  literal  fenfe  is  more  apt  and  natural,    rhaa 
"  either  or  thefe  farfetched  interpretations. 
'-  The  facred   body  of  the  bleffed  Jefus  was 
"  truly  and  literally,  baptized.      He  was   wet 
••  and  bathed  in  his  own  tears,  and  fweat.  and 
*•  blood,    while   in    his  agony  in  the  garden,. 
"  when    fcourged,   and    when    nailed   to  the 
"  crofs.      He  was  baptizt  d  and  "anftified  by 
'•  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  Keb.  x — 2^ — 
"  that  is,   by  his   own  blood  ;    even   as   the 
'•  Jewifh  high  priefts  '.vere  baptized,  fan6lifi-^ 
*'  ed,    and    confecra^ed,    with   water  and  the 
"  blood  of  beafts,    as  types  of  Chrift;      And 
"  accordingly,  it  was  a  common  exprefiTion  oT 
"  the  ancient  fathers,  concerning  the  martyrs 
"who  had  fhed   their  blood   in   bearing  wit^ 
''  nefs  to  the  chriflian  faith  ;  that  they  were 
*^  baptized  with  their  own    blood.       Here  is 
"  (hen,  I  think,   an  other   good    proof,    that- 
"  dipping  is  no   ways   elFcntial    to   baptifm  : 
"  Foi  Chrift  was  not  dipped,  and  his  martyrs- 
*^  wer-fe  not  dipped,  in  their  bloody  baptifm; 
**-but  he  was  wet,  and  tinged,  and  bathed,  ia; 


l66  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

^'  his  own  fweat  and  blood,  iffaing- froni  his 
•*  pores  and  veins. 

Our  Saviour  told  the  two  Tons  of  Zebedee, 
'*  that  they  Jhould  be  baptized  with  the  baptifm 
"  that  he  was  baptized  zvith."  It  is  worthy 
our  notice,  that  this  prediBion  was  literally 
fulfilled.  Thefe  difciples  were  literally  bap- 
tized, though  in  different  modes  ;  one  by  af- 
fufion,  and  the  other  by  immerfiori.  James 
was  beheaded,  and  in  that  way  baptized  with 
the  affufion  of  his  own  blood.  J<"^bn  was 
cariied  to  Rome,,  and  thrre  plunged  into 
boiling  oi',  but  miracuouflv  preferved  from 
injur)',  and  afterward  banilhc^d  to  the  ifle  of 
Patmos. 

Although  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  were  all 
antecedent,  and  preparatory  to  his  death,  yet 
his  facred  body,  that  facrifice  of  himfelf, 
which  he  offered  up  to  God,  was  alfo  literal- 
ly baptized  with  the  blood  and  water  that  iffued 
from  his  pierced  Tide.  St.  John  informs  us, 
that  he  was  prefent  and  a  fpedator  of  the 
fcene.  He  repeatedly  mentions  it  as  an  e- 
vent  of  great  iniporiance.  He  tells  us,  that 
'•  he  Jaw  one  of  the  foldiers  pierce  his  fide  with  a 
^^  Jpear^  and  forthwith  came  thereout  hlocd  and 
"  water,''  In  his  firll  Epiftle,  5th  chapter, 
6th  and"8ih  vrrfes,  he  feveral  times  alludes 
to  this  very  event,  and  obferve.*^,  '^  this  is  he 
**  that  came  by  water  end  bloody  even  Jejus  Chrifl^ 
^'  not  by  water  only^  but  by  water  and  blood.'' 
He  adds  further,  ^Hhere  are  three^  who  beat' 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  l6j 

"  witnefs  in  earthy  the  fpirit^  and  the  water ^  and 
<'  the  blood  ;  and  thefe  three  agree  in  one»^ 

At  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  baptifmal  in- 
auguration, he  was  baptized  by  the  Holy 
Ghoft.  '•  The  Spirit  defcended  vifibly  in  the 
^'  form  of  a  dove  and  lighted  upon  him^  and  tef 
"  tified  with  an  audible  voice^  this  is  my  beloved 
*•  Son^  &c."  And  whenhe  had  fini/hed  his 
work,  and  was  a6lually  dead,  both  the  blood 
and  the  -water,  with  which  his  body  was  bap- 
lizcd,  exhibited  their  tefiimony,  in  proof  of 
the  farae  truth. 

The  Apoflle  exprefsly  tells  uf.  that  a  will 
or  teflamtnt  cannot  efFeQually  exift,  or  have 
d.ny  J} rengch,  zchile  the  tefiator  is  alive  ;  but  the 
very  moinent  his  death  takes  place,  it  is  in 
full  force. 

Every  thing  which  happened  relative  to 
our  blelTed  Saviour,  previoufly  to  his  death, 
were  events  under  the  old  te (lament  or  cov- 
enant. The  blood  and  water,  which  iflued 
from  his  fide,  were  events  after  his  death, 
and  therefore  under  the  new  teftament  or 
covenant. 

The  piercing  of  our  Saviour's  fide  was  an 
event  of  importance,  it  being  the  fulfilment 
of  a  remarkable  prophecy.  The  iffuing  of 
blood  and  water,  thus  feparated,  were  impor- 
tant events,  becaufe  they  afforded  the  mod 
publick  and  certain  evidence  ihat  be  was  ac- 
tually dead.  They  were  alfo  very  important, 
becaufe  his  death,  and  his  baptifn  with  blood, 
and  with  water,  were  the  antitypes,  acccmplijli- 


l58  AN    APOLCfCY   FOU 

ment  and  end^  of  all  thofe  bloody  facrifice^Ss 
and  of  all  thofe  purifications  or  haptifms, 
which  had  been  fo  often,  and  for  fo  long  a 
time,  performed  by  the  fprinklvig  of  mixtd 
blood  and  wate?-^  under  the  Mofaic  difpenfa- 
tion.  Thus,  the  fpirit^  the  water^  and  the 
bloody  agree  in  one  point,  Fhefe  three  wit- 
nefles  unite  their  teftimony,  in  vindicating 
the  Mcffiahfhip  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

The  9th  and  loth  chapters  to  the  Hebrews 
merit  our  particular  attention.  "  The  high 
"  prieft,  under  the  law,  did  not  enter  the  holy 
^'  place  of  the  temple,  without  the  blood  of 
*'  faciifices,  which  he  offered  for  himfelf,  and 
*'  for  the  errors  of  the  people,  once  every 
*'  year  (on  the  great  day  of  expiation.)  But 
«'  Chrift,  not  by  the  blcod  of  goats  and  calves, 
^  but  by  bis  own  bloody  hath  entered,  once  for 
''  j//,  into  the  holy  place  not  made  with 
"  hands;  and  hath  procured  redemption  for 
'^  us.  For  this  caufe,  he  is  the  mediator  of 
"  the  New  Tejlamtnt,  For  where  a  it /lament 
<«  e5,  there  mtifi  of  neceffiiy  be  the  death  of 
"  the  tefiator.  For  a  tejlament  is  o^ force  after 
«'  men  are  dead^  but  has  no  flrength  at  all, 
«'  while  the  tejlator  livtth.  Whereupon  the 
f  fird  tejlamcnt  was  not  dedicated  without 
^^  blood.  For  when  Mofes  had  fpoken  every 
<•  precept  to  all  the  people,  according  to  ;he 
'*  law,  he  took  \.\\€  blood  of  goats  and  calves, 
'•  with  zvater*  and  fcailet  wool,  and  by  (Top, 
^'  and  fprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the 
<•  people 5    faying,  this   is  the    biod  of  the 


I-NFANT    BAPTISM.  169 

^  tcjlament  which  God  hath  enjoined  unto 
*«  you.  Moreover  like  wife,  he  fprinkled  with 
«  blood  both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  veffels 
"  of  the  miniftry  ;  and  almoft  all  things  are, 
*'  by  the  law,  purged  with  blood.  Sec,  It 
<*  was  therefore  neceffary,  that  the  patterns  of 
"  things  in  the  heavens,  (hould  be  purified 
^'  with  thefe ;  but  the  heavenly  things  them- 
^^  f elves i  with  better  facrifices  than  thefe^'  &c.  &c. 
Thofe  various  purifications  of  the  Jews, 
and  efpecially  that  eminently  great  and  ex- 
piatory purification,  which  was  adminiftered 
by  the  hand  of  Mofeshimfelf,  and  afterward 
by  the  hand  of  the  high  prieft,  once  every 
year,  was  performed  by  i\\q,  fprinkling  of  blood 
and  water,  Thefe  purifications,  which  were 
effjded  by  the  fpri7ikling  of  blood  and  vuater^ 
the  Apoltie  exprcfsly  calls  baptifms^  as  we 
haVe  largely  fhown.  But  Chrift,  whofe  death 
was  reprefented  and  prefigured  by  all  the 
Jcwijii  offerings^  and  whofe  bloody  ba'ptifm  was 
typifitd  by  all  their  baptifms  or  fprinkling<^  of 
blood  and  water ^  was  himfelf  purified  "  with 
"  better  facrifices  than  thfe."  He  ^d^s  fprink- 
led^ was  baptized  with  the  blood  and  water  that 
ifTued  from  the  pores  of  his  own  body — from 
his  naikd  hands  and  pet^  and  from  his  pierced 
fide.  Tills  was  emphaiicaliy  "  the  blood  of 
'•  the  nev  itftanficnt  and  covenant^  whereby  he  was 
^*  faadified^^'  and  confecrated  an  acceptable 
faciifice  to  God. 

We  have  no  difpofiiion  to  invalidate  the 
mode  of  baprizing   bv  immerfion.     The  va- 
P 


170  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

lidity  of  one  particular  mode  does  not  nuU 
lify,   or  prove  the  invalidity  of  another,  as 
the  baptifts  imagine.     Nor  is  the   metaphor- 
ical  interpretation   of  Chrift's  bloody   bap- 
tifm  inconfiftent  with   its  literal  and  natural 
meaning.     In  the  figurative  language  of  the 
old  teftament,  waters,  and  floods,  and  waves, 
and  billows,  whether  they  come  over  a  perfon, 
or  whether  ht  Jinks  into  them,  are  fometimes 
made  ufe  of  to  exprefs  great  afflidions  and 
fufferings.     Accordingly,  David  fays,  Pfalm 
Ixix — 1,  2,  "  The  waters  are  come  into  my  foul ; 
"  /  Jink   in  deep  mire  ;    I  am  come  into  deep 
"  waters''     And  in  the  42d  Pfalm,  "  All  thy 
''  waves  and  billows  are  gone  over  me^  &:c."     By 
ihefe  exprefTions,  the   Pfalmift  had  undoubt- 
edly a  primary  reference  to  himfelf.     But  if 
it  fliould  be  fuppofed,  as  fome   baptifl    wri- 
ters   tell   us,    "  that   fuch    paflages   are   alfo 
'•  prophetical,  and  have    refpe6l    to   the  laft 
*'  baptifmal  fufferings  ofCbrift5and  therefore 
«'  favour  the  mode   of  baptizing   by  immer- 
«•  fion  ;"  ftill  there  is  nothing  in  this  fuppofi- 
tion,  which  dilproves,  or  even  appears  unfa- 
vourable to  the  mode  of  affufion  or  fprink- 
ling  ;  efpecially  when  we  confider  that  great 
fufferings  are  frequently    reprefented   in  the 
fcriptures  by  pourings  as  well  as  by  plunging. 
It  is  faid,  in  the  22d  Pfalm,  14th  verfe,  with 
particular  reference  to  the  fufferings  ofChrift, 
''  J  am  poured  out  like  water,''     And  in  Daniel 
ix — 1 1,27.  "  The  curfe  is  poured  out  upon  us^" 
and  that  'f  the  confummation  is  poured  upon  thi 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I7I 

"  defolatey  The  very  fame  word  is  here  ufed 
which  the  Apoflle  applies  to  the  crucifixion 
of  Chrift.  "  He  was  made  a  curfe  for  us,  as 
'•  it  is  written*  curfed  is  every  one  that  hang- 
'•  eth  on  a  tree." — '•  The  anger  and  fury  of 
^'  Almighty  God,  and  -vials  of  his  wrath,  are 
'•  reprefented  as  being  poured  out  upon  na- 
••  lions  and  individuals." 

Thefe  metaphors  are  in  feme  refpeQs  ap- 
plicable to  the  fufferings  and  baptifm  of 
Ciirill;  but  the  liceral  Tenfe  appears  to  me 
much  the  moft  natural,  fignificanf,  and  im- 
portant. Chrift,  by  being  literally  baptized 
wiih  the  blood  and  xvater  that  ifTued  from  his 
own  body,  hath  literally  fulfilled,  and  put  an 
end  to,  all  the  bloody  rites,  facrifices,  and 
baptifms  of  the  old  teftament. 

Under  the  new  teftament,  the  baptifmal 
water  is  not  to  be  mingled  with  blood  or  the 
aJJies  of  a  facrificed  heifer.  All  compofitions 
and  mixtures  are  to  be  laid  afide.  "  I  will 
Jprinkle^'  fays  Chrift,  «'  dean  water  upon  you, 
"  and  you  (hall  be  clean*' — '«  So  Jhall  he 
"  fprinkk  many  nations,'" 

1  am,  Sir,  <fec. 


172  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

LETTER     XVIL 
SIR, 

V  V  E  find  in  the  facred  fcriprures,  that  the 
application  and  ufe  ofwater,  in  a  facrannental 
(^cnCe^  and  the  communication  of  divine  in- 
fluences, are  both  denominated  Baptifms. 
Let  us  then  attend  to  this  fpiritual  Baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  fee  if  it  will  not  re- 
fled  fome  ufeful  light  upon  that  literal  Bap- 
tifm, which  is  adminiftered  by  the  application 
of  water. 

I  perceive  that  you,  like  the  other  Baptift 
writers,  have  turned  your  attention  wholly 
to  the  ever  memorable  day  of  Pentecoft  ; 
and  feem  to  imagine  that  the  affufions  of 
God's  fpirit,  on  that  particular  occafion,  were 
(o  plentiful,  as  to  favour  the  mode  of  dip- 
ping. 

You  obferve,  Serm.  4,  page  62;  "Here 
"was  truly  a  wonderful  inflance  of  Ch  rift's 
^^  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft." 

"  Here  1.  All  the  houfe  was  filled  witb 
"  the  found,  mnd  or  fpirit  from  heaven. 
"  2.  Cloven  tongiies  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  fat 
"  upon  each  of  them.  3.  They  were  all 
«  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft." 

^'  We  here  fee  that   they  were   all   over- 
^'whelmed;  for  all    the   houfe    where   they 
"were  fitting,  was  filled  ;  and  not  only  were 
"they  all  overwhelmed,  but  they  were  alfo, 
'-filled;' 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1  73 

"  It  is  left  for  you  to  determine,  what  be- 
"  comes  of  Mr.  Cleaveland's  argument,  upon 
"  which  he  lays  fo  much  ftreis,  and  of  which 
"  he  fpeaks  with  fo  much  confidence,  and 
"  not  unfrequently  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
«  &c;' 

Thus,  Sir,  you  appear  to  boaft  a  little  on 
the  occafion,  as  if  your  obfervaiions  relative 
to  this  fpiritual  Baptifm,  were  unanfwerable 
and  conclufive.     But  let  us  examine  them. 

In  the  firft  place  you  tell  us,  '«  that  all  the 
"  houle  was  filled  with  the  found,  v/ind  or 
^'  fpirit,  from  heaven."  Sounds  wind^fpir it — 
Thefe  three  words,  or  at  leaft  two  of  them, 
are  mentioned  by  you  as  if  they  were  perfect- 
ly fynonimous;  which  is  very  different  from 
the  fenfe  in  which  St.  Luke  ufed  them.  He 
does  not  fay  that  the  hoafe  was  filied  with 
wind,  nor  even  intimate  that  there  was  any 
wind  at  all  in  it. —  He  does  not  fay  that  the 
houfe  was  JiUed  with  the  fpirit.  He  only 
meant  to  inform  us,  that  it  was  filled  with  an 
unufual,  aftonifliingybz^n^,  refcmhling  the  noife 
of  a  mighty  rupiing  -wind.  So  that  your  ovtr- 
whchning  was  an  immerfion  into  a  m^re found. 
It  is  however  true,  that  the  whole  houfe  was 
a6iually  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and 
you  might  with  the  fame  propriety  have  told 
us,  that  his  Omniprefent  Spirit  pervaded  the 
immenfity  of  fpace  ;  that  his  effential  pre- 
fence  equally  filled  all  houfes — all  perfons — 
and  all  things ;  and  that  being  thus  filled  and 
Pa 


174  ^-'N    A.POLCCY    FOR 

furroiinded  with  Deity,  we  all  are  conft'andy 
and  totally  overwhelmed  and  immerfed. 

But  the  facred  hiftorian  was  not  fpeaking 
concerning  the  elTential  prefence  of  God.  He 
was  only  relating  thofe  miraculous  operations 
and  efFcfts  of  the  Spirit,  which  were  then  pe- 
culiar to  that  particular  time  and  place. 
The  found  was  audible  in  every  part  cf  the 
boufe.  They  all  heard  it  with  their  ears. 
The  appearance  was  vifihle.  They  faw  it  with 
therr  eyes.  This  appearance  alTumed  a  vi- 
fihle y^rw,  refemhlii^g  that  o^  cloven  tongues  of 
Jire.  The  exaQ  fize  of  ihefe  tongues  is  not 
mentioned,  but  the  appearance  was  fo  fmall, 
that  it  fat  difiinftly  upon  each  one  of  the 
Apoftles.  They  are  faid  to  he  Jilltd  uith  the 
Holy  Ghojl.  They  were  influenced  in  an  ex- 
t^'aordinary  manner,  and  enabled  to  fpeak  in 
various  languages,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance. The  Apoflles  were  not  dipped.  The 
Holy  Spirit  affumed  a  vif  hie  fhape  ;  and  that 
vifible  fl^iape,  like  a  fiery  flame,  came  down 
from  heaven,  and  fat  vifibly  upon  each  in- 
dividual, undoubtedly  upon  hi>  head. 

I  perceive  that  you  have  adopted  a  lan- 
gt^ige,  firr.r'ar  to  ,that  of  Dr.  Gill  and  Mr. 
Boo'h.  Whenever  perfons  are  baptized  by 
an  affufirn  of  dcrv^  or  rain,  or  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, \[  i>  of  courre  thought  to  be  fo  abundant, 
£s  to  "look  cop.fiderably  like  immeiHon." 
But,  Sir,  after  all  that  lias  b.^en  faid,  there  is 
2n  iinpottant  difPrence.  betvv'cen  a  "  feem- 
Jiig  inimeifion,"  and  a  real  aflufjon. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1  75 

TTiere  is  another  thing  which  I  have  fre- 
quently noted.  Formerly,  the  baptifts,  with 
whom  I  have  been  acquainted,  commonly 
ufed  the  word  dipping ;  after  a  whi'e,  they  in- 
trodiiced  plunging  ;  ih^n.  imynerjion  ;  and  lat- 
terly, overwhelming^  which  is  evidently  a  word 
of  very  indefinite  meaning,  and  as  different 
ia  iis  Signification  from  dipping*,  as  it  is  from 
pouring. 

You  could  not  fay  that  the  Apoftles  were 
dipped  into  the  Holy  Ghoft.  This  language 
would  have  been  intolerably  uncouth.  You 
therefore  tell  us,  that  they  were  overwhehned, 
I  fuppofe  yoir  mean  by  a  plentiful  affufion. 
Let  us  examine  this  matter  a  little  further^ 
and  fee  how  the  facred  fcriptures  explain  it.. 

Baptifmy  by  water,  is  an  emblem  of  bap- 
tifm  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  infpired  w-ri- 
ters  have  therefore  repeatedly  aflociated  thefe 
baptifms,  even  in  the  fame  fentence,  as  if 
they  w^ere  nearly  related.  John,  the  Bapti- 
zer,  exprefsly  declares,  as  in  Matt,  iii — ii.. 
Mark  i,  8.  Luke  iii.  1 6.  John  i  33.  <'  J,  indeed,- 
'•  baptize  you  -with  water,  but  he  (hall  baptize 
*'•  you  zoiih  the  Holy  Ghoft."  Sc.  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  both  added  the  word  Jire, 
"  He  fhall  baptize  )0J  with  the  Holy  Ghoft^ 
'•  and  with  fire,''  This  remarkable  predic- 
tion is  mentioned  by  each  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelifti :  And  in  the  AHs  of  the  Apoftles,  it  is 
twice  applied,  by  Chrift  himfelf,  to  \\\&  pour- 
ing out  of  God's  Spirit;  as  in  the  ift  chap- 
ter and  5th  v^rfe.  "  For  John  truly  baptized 


176  AN   APOLOGY   FOR 

"  with  water ;  but  ye  fhall  be  baptized  with  the 
"  Holy  Gho/lj  not  many  days  hence."  And 
in  the  11th  chapter,  16th  verfe — "Then  re- 
"  mennbered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
"  that  he  faid,  Jfohn  indeed  baptized  with  vater^ 
"  but  yt  fhall  be  baptized  v.ith  the  Holy  Ghojl,'* 
In  the  original  language,  the  Greek  words 
are  en  iidati,  with  water ;  en  pneumati  agio^  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  kai  puri,  and  with  fire. 
Thefe  words  are  Gorre6lly  tranflated.  I  have 
already  obferved,  that  the  dative  cafe,  in  the 
Greek  language,  when  it  follows  and  is  gov- 
erned by  the  prepofition  en,  is  commonly 
and  properly  ufed  inftrumentally.  The  water^ 
the  Holy  Ghoji,  and  the  Jire,  are  accordingly 
mentioned  as  the  injlniments,  by  which  they 
were  baptized.  This  criticifm  is  juft  and 
important;  and  it  ferves  to  elucidate  the 
mode  or  manner,  in  which  bapiifm  was  ad- 
miniftered. 

It  would  be  proper  to  fay,  I  fprinkle  you 
zyzVA  water;  or,  I  baptize  you  with  water,  by 
afFufion.  But  it  would  be  improper  to  fay, 
I  dip  you  with  water;  3.nd jiiji  as  improper,  to 
fay,  1  baptize  you  with  water,  if  the  raode  of 
baptizing  were  that  o^  dipping.  If  a  perfon 
be  plwnged  or  dipped,  he  is  then  baptized  in 
water.  Bat  if  a  perfon  be  fprinkled,  or  has 
the  baptifmal  element  applied  to  him  in  any 
mode  whatfoever.  he  is  then  baptized  by  or 
with  water.  And  thus,  when  perions  are  faid 
to  be  baptized  tt/zVA  the  Holy  Ghoft,  the  ex- 
preffion  has  particular  reference   to  the  affii- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I'jf 

Jion  or  pouring  out  of  God's  Spirit.  For  this 
k  the  viode^^  according  to  fcripture  language^ 
by  which  his  influences  are  communicated  to 
mankind. 

St.  Peter,  that  very  Apoflle  who  preach- 
ed, and  who  was  an  eye  and  an  ear  witnefs^; 
of  thofe  wonderful  events,  which  happened' 
at  :he  feafl  of  Penticoft,  obferves,  A61s  ii — 
17,  33,  that  this  was  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  of  Joel.  "  It  fnall  come  to  pafs  in 
"  the  laft  days,  faith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my 
''  fpirit  upon  all  flefh,"  &c.— '•  That  Chrift 
'*  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  e>alted,  and 
"  having  received  of  the  Faiher  the  promife 
"  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  he  hath  fned  forth  this. 
"  W'hich  ye  now  fee  and  hear."  This  man- 
ner of  expreffion  alludes  to  the  mode^  in  which 
they  were  baptized  hy  the  Holy  Ghoji.  It  was 
not  by  dipping.  The  Spirit  was  Jhtd  forth^ 
and  poured  out  upon  them.  All  hough  this  was 
the  moft  copious  and  extraordinary  afFufion 
that  ever  happened,  i^  is  never  expreffed  by 
the  word  dipped.^  plunged^  immei'Jed^  or  over- 
zvhelmed.  Indeed,  ihefe  words  are  no  where 
ufed  in  the  facred  volume,  relatively  to  bap- 
tifm,  either  with  water  or  with  the  Holy  GhoJl-. 

I  believe  we  may  fafely  truft  and  adopt  the 
language  of  infpiration,  which  fays,  the  Holy 
S^Arh  v/as/hed forth  and  poitred  out  upon  them. 
The  fame  and  fimilar  language  is  made  ufe  of 
on  common  and  more  ordinary  occafions,  as- 
we  read  in  A6ls  x — 44.  "  While  Peter  yet 
"  fpake  thefe  words,  the  Holy  Ghoft  fell.  oUi 


178  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  all  them  which  heard  the  word."  xi — 15. 
''  And  as  he  began  to  fpeak,  the  Holy  Ghoft 
"  /e//  on  thevi  as  on  us  at  the  beginning." 
Which  exprefifion  is  conformable  to  A61s  i — 
8—"  Ye  fhall  receive  power,  after  that  the 
"  Holy  Ghoft  is  cojne  upon  you.''  This  com- 
munication or  bapiifm  of  God's  Spirit  is  rep- 
refented  "  by  the  dew'' — '•  hy  the  rain" — ««  ly 
^^  fiioxers''  "  He  fhall  come  down  like  rain 
^'  upon  the  moion  grafs^  and  like  Jlioxvers  that 
"  water  the  earth."  "  /  will  pour^  faith  God, 
"  waters  on  the  thirjly,  and  Jloods  on  the  dry 
"  ground  j  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  on  thy  feed,  and 
"  my  hlejfing  on  thine  offspring"  '•  It  is  called 
"  an  unBion  fro7n  the  II.  ly  One  ;"  which  is  an 
allufion  to  the  ancient  cuftom  of  pouring  on 
the  head,  the  confecrating  oil.  The  Spirit  is 
faid  to  come  upon — to  fall  upon  them — to  befJicd 
forth —  and  to  be  poured  upon  them. 

This  language  is  perfeftly  familiar  and  in- 
telligible to  Jews  and  Chriftians;  and  has 
therefore  been  adopted  by  the  Prophets  and 
Apoftle^.  It  correfponds  with  their  ufual 
modes  of  purif;;ing,  and  of  baptizing  with 
water.  The  fanftifying  and  comforting  in- 
fluences of  God's  Spirit  are  often  aptly  rep- 
refented  in  the  facred  fcriptures  by  the  em- 
blem of  water.  The  comn)unication  of  thefe 
influences  is  emblematically  reprefented  by 
the  affufion  and  fprinkiing  of  water  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm.  '*  I  indeed  baptize  you 
"  zvith  water."  I  pour  and  fprinkle  water 
upon  you  ;  "  but  he  Jhall  baptize  you  with  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


179 


"  Holy  Ghojlr—n^  fhall  Jhed  forth  and  pour 
out  upon  you  his  bleffed  Spirit,  and  fprinkk 
your  hearts  and.  confciences  thereby,  and  purify 
them  from  the  guilty  ftain  of  fin, 

I  think,  Sir,  that  the  good  Mr.  Cleaveland 
has  no  reafon  to  be  afh?med  of  the  argument, 
upon  which,  you  fay,  "  he  lays  fo  much 
"  ftrefs."  Who  can  reafonably  doubt  the 
validity  of  baptifm  by  affiijion,  when  he  finds 
baptizing^  JJiedding  Jorth^  pouring-)  fpr inklings 
and  anointings  fo  frequently  ufed  by  the  pen 
of  infpiration,  in  the  fame  fenfe,  as  words 
of  the  fame,  or  fimilar  fignificalion  ? 
I  am.  Sir,  &€. 


LETTER     XVIII. 

SIRy 

-L-jET  us  now  enquire  after  the  true  mean- 
ing of  that  well  known  paffage,  recorded  in 
Romans,  vi.  4.  '•  Therefore  we  are  buried 
"  with  hi7n,  hy  baptifm^  into  deaths''  Sec.  A 
fimilar  expreflion  occurs  in  Coloflians,  ii.  12. 
Some  perfons  fuppofe  the  word  buried,  as 
here  ufed  by  the  Apoftle,  is  to  be  underftood 
literally^  as  having  reference  to  the  mode  of 
bapiizing  by  immerfon.  Others  fuppofe  it 
is  to  be  underftood  figuratively,  as  having 
reference  to  the  burial  offin^  which  the  Apof- 
tle  here  calls  the  body  of  fin — our  old  7nan,     We 


iSo  AN   APOLOGY   FOA 

fee  plainly  in  what  the  difference  of  opiniofi 
confifts.  Now,  is  the  literal,  or  is  the  figura- 
tive fenfe,  to  be  preferred  ?  This  is  the  quef- 
tion.  It  is  a  fa6l  univerfally  acknowledged, 
that  the  infpired  writers  have  fometimes  ufed 
particular  words,  literally,  and  fometimes, 
figuratively.  But  it  will  not  be  fafe  and 
proper,  for  every  individual  to  adopt  either 
the  figurative,  or  the  literal  fenfe  of  words, 
as  fhall  befl  fuit  his  principles  and  prejudices 
in  other  refpeds.  This  pra6lice  would  cer- 
tainly be  very  fallacious  and  even  dange- 
rous. We  evidently  need  fome  eflabliflied 
rule,  in  order  to  aflift  and  dire8;  our  judg- 
ment in  this  matter.  The  following  rule,  I 
believe,  has  been  generally  approved  by  ju- 
dicious and  impartial  chriftians,  of  all  de- 
nominations, viz.  That  the  literal  fenfe 
ought  always  to  be  preferred,  when  it  is  a- 
greeable  to  the  context — to  the  general  tenoitr 
of  the  fcriptures,  and  to  the  common  ufe  of 
the  word  by  infpired  writers.  But  if  oiher- 
wife,  we  are  bound  to  givQ  the  preference  to 
a  figurative  fenfe  ^  which  is  not  inconjijlent  with 
the  context,  or  with  the  real  fenfe  of  fcrip- 
ture  in  general^  or  with  that  particular  fenfe^ 
in  which  the  word  is  commonly  ufed. 

We  find,  in  ihe  facred  fcriptures,  very  fre- 
quent accounts  of  burying  the  dead.  The  cir- 
cumftance^  of  their  burial  are  repeatedly  men- 
tioned. But  the  word  burial  is  never  made 
ufe  of,  in  a  literal  kn^e,  with  refpea  to  the 
liviiig.     When  our  Saviour  commiffioned  his 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  l8l    ■- 

Apoftles  to  adminifter  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm,  he  did  not  command  them  to  biny  per- 
fons  under  water;  or  to  baptize  them  b^  a 
burial.  We  have  many  inftances  on  facred 
record  of  perfons,  to  whom  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  was  adminiftercd;  but  it  is  not  faid 
nor  intimated,  that  a  fingle  individual  was 
buried  in  the  water,  or  baptized  by  a  buriaL 
This  word,  in  its  literal  ufe  and  fignification, 
appears  to  be  appropriated,  exclufively,  to 
the  dead.  I  believe  there  is  not  fo  much  as 
one  inflance,  either  in  the  old  or  new  tefta- 
menr,  of  its  being  uTed  h'terally  with  refer- 
ence to  any  perfon  alive^  or  with  reference 
to  the  mode  of  baptizing. 

It  is  evident  from   the  context,   that  our 
being  '•  buried  zvith  Chriji  into  death^''  as  men- 
tioned   in    the    4th    verfe ;    and   our   being 
«  planted  together   in  the  likenefs  of  his  death^'' 
as  mentioned  in  the   5th  verfe;  and  our  be- 
ing *'  crucified -with  him,"  as  mentioned  in  the 
6th  verfe,  are  phrafes  of  the  fame  or  fimilar 
(ignificancy.      How   then    (hall    we    explain 
and    underftand  thefe   parallel    expreflions  ? 
Shall  we  underftand  one  of  thefe  expreiTions 
literally,  and   the  other  two  figuratively,  as 
may  be  mod  agreeable  to  our  particular  no- 
tions ?     This    would    not    be   impartial    and 
right.     We  ougl  t  to  underiland  all  of  them 
literally,  or  all  figuratively.      Now.  it  is  olain 
that   all    thefe   expreffions    may,    with   great 
propriety,   be  underftood   according   to   the 
figurative  interpretation  ;  but  it  is  inipofiTible 
O 


^  i82  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

to  underfland  each  one  according  to  its  lit- 
eral meaning. 

The  A  poll  le  fays,  *'  our  old  man  is  crucijiei 
«  with  Chriftr  And  in  Gal.  ii— 20.  "  1  am 
"  crucijied  with  Chrift."  And  in  the  5th  chap- 
ter, 24th  verfe.  "  They  that  are  Chrifl's  have 
"  crucijied  the  flefh.  &c."  No  perfon,  I  pre- 
fume,  fuppofes  that  we  muft,  by  baptilm,  be 
literally  crucified  ;  that  we  muft  b^  aftually 
nailed  to  the  crofs,  and  there  fuffer  the  ig- 
nominious and  painful  death  of  crucifixion. 
Every  one  will  admit,  that  thefe  paflages  are 
to  be  underftood  figuratively. — "  It  is  the  old 
*'  man — the  body  o/Jin' — our  vicious  difpofi- 
tions  and  lufts,  that  are  to  be  mortified  and 
flain. 

''  Know  ye  not,"  fays  the  Apoftle,  "  that 
«'  fo  many  of  us,  as  were  baptized  into  Jefus 
''  Chrift,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
'^  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him,  by  bap- 
^' tifm,  into  death;  that  like  as  Chrift  was 
'«  raifed  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
'«  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  fliould  walk  in 
*'  newnefs  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been 
"  planted  together  in  the  likenefsof  his  death, 
*'  we  (hall  be  alfo  in  the  likenefs  of  his  ref- 
«  urreftion,  &c."  Now,  to  be  buried  with 
Chrijl,  by  baptifm.  into  death  ;  and  to  be  plant- 
ed together^  in  the  likenefs  of  his  death;  arc 
certainly  fynonimous  expreffions.  But.  Sir, 
where  is  the  likenefs^  where  is  the  r 'fem- 
blance,  between  a  burial  in  water,  a  dipping, 
as  Dr.  Gill  calls  it,  and  the  death  of  Chrift  ? 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  183 

— the  crucifixion  of  Chrift  ?  For  he  died  on 
the  crofs. 

Mr.  Simeon  Snow,  a  ferious  and  fenfible 
writer,  having  been  a  baptift  minifter,in  this 
country,  for  many  years,  and  who  has  latter- 
ly altered  his  fentiments,  very  juftly  obferves, 
"  That  he  could  not  fee  the  lead  likenefs  or 
*'  refemblance,  between  the  death  of  Chrift, 
"  as  reprefented  by  the  four  Evangelifts,  and 
"  baptifm  by  immerfion.  If  Chrift  had  died 
"  by  being  drowned^  there  would  have  been 
'^  a  likenefs."  The  mode  of  dipping  would 
then  refemble  the  manner  of  his  dying.  But  a 
literal  burial  in  water  diicovers  no  refem- 
blance to  the  death  of  the  crofs,  or  to  the 
place  and  manner  in  which  his  dead  body 
was  buried. 

The  land  of  Judea  abounded  wiih  large 
rocks,  -which  were  partly  above  the  furface 
of  the  ground.  In  thefe,.  the  rich  prepared 
tombs,  which  were  called  feptilchres  on  high. 
Accordingly,  we  read  in  Ifaiah,  xxii — 16, 
"  What  haft  thou  here  ?  And  whom  haft  ihoa 
"  here,  that  thou  haft  hewed  thee  out  a  fe- 
^^  pidchre  here,  as  he  that  heiveth^him  out  a  fe- 
'*  pulchre  on^  high  ?"  Thus  the  prophet  re- 
proved Shebna,  who  was  a  poor  perfon,  for 
his  extravagant  andexpenfive  pride  and  van- 
ity. The  common  people,  when  dead,  were 
buried  in  the  ground.  But  the  rich  provi- 
ded for  themfelvesy^j^z^/cAr^s  on  high.  In  one 
of  ihefe  fepulchral  monuments,  our  Saviour 
was  entombed.  The  prophet  fays,  ^^he  made  his 


184  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  grave  with  the  wicked^  and  with  the  rich,  his 
"  high  places.''  For  Jofeph,  we  are  told,  be- 
ing a  rich  7nan,  "  laid  the  body  of  Chrijl  in  his 
'*  own  new  tomh^  which  he  had  hewn  out  in  the 
'*  rockr 

Dr.  Lathrop  obferves,  ''  that  plunging  no 
**  more  refenables  Chrift's  entombment,  than 
*•  rprinkling  does.  If  there  were  any  cir- 
*'  cumftance  in  his  burial,  which  baptifm  can 
"  refemble,  it  muft  be  his  embalmment.  For 
^'  it  is  faid,  that  Nicodemus  brought  Simixture 
''  cf  myrrh  and  aloes,  and  wound  the  body  of  Je- 
^'fus  in  linen  clothes  with  the  f pices,  as  the  man- 
'•  ner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury.  And  after  this, 
'•  the  women  prepared  [pices  and  ointments  and 
''  came  to  anoint  his  body.  Accordingly,  be- 
"  fore  his  death,  when  the  woman  poured 
^'  the  precious  ointment  on  his  head,  he  faid, 
*'  in  that  JJie  poured  it  on  my  head,  fn.e  did  it  to 
^*  my  burial.  She  is  come  to  anoint  my  body  to  the 
''  burying.  Her  pouring  it  on  his  head,  he 
^  calls  pouring  it  on  his  body' — anointing  his 
body  to  the  burying. 

Thus,  Sir,  you  fee  that  we  can  difcover 
nothing  in  the  bapiifts'  mode  of  dippings 
which  refembles  either  the  crucifixion  or 
burial  of  Chrift.  Where  then  fnall  we  find 
that  important  likenefs,  which  St.  Paul  fo 
particularly  mentions  ?  It  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  literal  fignification  of  the  word  buried 
or  planted  ;  we  muft  therefore  look  for  it  in 
the  figurative  meaning.  We  have  already 
gbferved  that  the  word  buried^  in    its   literal 


INFANT    BAPTWM,  1 85 

ufe,  is  never  applied  to  bapiifm^  or  to  perfons 
while  alive,  bat  to  the  dead.  We  now  ob- 
ferve,  that  the  word  to  plants  has  a  primary 
and  literal  reference  to  vegetables,  and  vines, 
and  trees,  and  their  various  feeds.  Thefe 
are  fowed  and  planted  literally.  Bat  in  ^l fig- 
urative {^n^Q^  the  Apoftle  informs  us,  that 
"  they  who  are  baptized  into  Jefus  Chrift 
"  are  baonzed  into  his  death."  They  are, 
hy  haptifm^  figuratively  crucified  v;ith  himj^/^/r^- 
^J  with  him,  and  buried  vvi(h  him. 

We  have  feveral  times  obferved,  that  the 
dative  cafe^  in  the  Greek  language,  when  it 
follows,  and  is  governed  by  the  prepofition 
en^  is  frequently  and  grammancally  uTed  as 
the  infirument.  Our  tranOators  have  often 
rendered  the  word  m,  in  fuch  a  manner,  ?,s 
to  exprefs  its  inftrumentality.  But  they  have 
fometimes,  perhaps  without  fufRcient  reafon, 
adopted  a  different  language,  as  in  Colof- 
fians  ii — 12.  Perfons  are  there  faid  to  be 
"  buried  with  Chrifl  inhaptijm''  The  Greek 
prepofition  is  en^  and  it  might  have  been 
irandited  correcliy  into  the  Eng'ifh  word  ^y, 
or  with  :  and  then  this  paiTage  would  have 
correfponded  jexa6lly  to  the  parallel  text  in 
Romans.  The  Apoftle  here  fays,  "that  we 
*^  are  buried  with  him,^  haptijm^  into  death." 
Baptifm,  in  this  place,  is  not  mentioned  as 
being  a  burial^  or  as  being  an  ailufion  to  a 
burial.  It  is  mentioned  as  the  infirmnmtal 
eaufe  of  our  being,  in  ^  figurative  Jtnjt.  buried 
with  Chrirt,  planted  with  Chrift,   and  crucified 


l86  AN   APOLCfGY   FOR 

\vitb  Chrift.  By  haptijm^  we  have  engaged  to 
mortify  and  bury  our  fins ;  it  is  confequently 
urged  as  an  argument  for  newnefs  of  life. 

The  baptifts  feem  to  have  taken  it  for 
granted,  that  baptifm  is  here  called  a  burial ; 
which  is  a  very  great  mijiake.  Dr.  Gill  tells 
us,  "that  baptifm  is  called  a  burial,  a  burial 
'•  with  Chrift,  a  reprefentation  or  refemblance 
••of  his,  which  it  cannot  be,  unlefs  it  be  ad- 
*^  miniftered  by  dipping.'' 

We  have  jfhown,  that  there  is  no  refem- 
blance between  the  baptifts'  mode  of  dippings 
and  the  manner  in  which  our  Saviour  died^  or 
the  manner  in  which  his  body  was  depojited  in 
\\itfepulchre.  And  now.  Sir,  let  me  requeftyou 
to  obferve,  that  baptifm  is  not  called  a  burial 
by  the  Apojile  ;  nor  in  any  part  of  the  bible  ; 
nor  are  we  informed  by  any  infpired  writer, 
that  it  was  inftituted  in  order  to  be,  literally, 
a  refemblance  of  Chrifl's  death  or  burial. 

B^iptifm,  it  is  true,  has  particular  reference 
to  Chrifl.  It  is  a  facrament  of  the  new  tefta- 
ment  or  covenant,  which  is  founded  in  his 
death  ;  and  it  fitly  fignifies  and  reprefents 
the  cleanfing  and  fanBifying  efficacy  of  his 
word,  and  b'ood,  and  fpiiit.  It  alfo  con- 
firms and  reprefents,  publickly.  our  obliga- 
tions to  conform  to  the  death,  and  burial, 
and  refurreclion  of  Chrift,  by  mortifying  and 
burying  our  fins,  and  by  ualking  in  newnefs  of  life, 
1  am  feiifible,  that  feme  perfons  have  im- 
agined that  Si.  Paul,  in  the  paflages  we  have 
been  confidering,  had  a  particular  and  ex- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  ifff 

clufive  reference  to  an  internal  and  fpiritual 
baptifm;  but  this  opinion  is  neither  neceffa- 
ry  nor  well  foanded.  For  the  external  bap- 
tifm by  water  is  emblematical  of  the  internal 
baptifm  by  the  influences  of  God's  Spirit; 
and  (he  thing  figitified  and  reprefented  by 
the  emblem  is,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  fup- 
pofed  to  be  implied,  and  connected  with  it. 

I  wifh,  Sir,  that  you  would  review,  with 
attention  and  impartiality,  the  6th  chapter  to 
the  Romans,  and  (he  fecond  and  third  chap- 
ters to  the  Colofli ins.  You  will  find  that  St, 
Paul  was  not  endeavouring  to  fpecify  dip- 
ping, as  the  only  lawful  and  valid  mode  of 
baptizing.  His  great  and  conftant  defign 
evidently  was,  to  enforce  the  necelTi  y  of  gen- 
uine repentance,  and  of  a  holy  life  and  con- 
verfation,  in  oppofiiion  to  the  licentious 
principles  and  immoral  pra6lices  of  the  an- 
linomian  and  Judaizing  Gnofticks,  who  were 
a  very  troubleTjme  and  mifchievous  feE^^  in 
the  days  of  primitive  chriftianity.  Every 
verfe,  and  every  line  was  written  with  this 
intention  and  tendency.  "  What /hall  we  fay 
*'  then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  Jin  that  grace  may 
^*  abound?  God  forbid.''  He  reje8:s  the  im- 
pious thought  wiih  abhorrence.  "  Howjhall 
"  xjue^  that  are  dead  to  Jin,  live  any  longer  there- 
"  in  .?"  And  then  introduces  baptifm  as  a 
principal  argument.  "  Know  ye  not,  that  as 
'•  many  of  us,  ds  were  baptized  into  Jfus  Chrijl, 
*'  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?"  By  baptifm, 
we  have  profelTed  publickly  our  faith  in  him 


1&8  AN    APOLOGY    FOR. 

as  being  the  true  Meffiih — our  belir  flrh  the^ 
doQrines  and  truths  which  he  inculcated— 
We  have,  by  bapiifm,  been  admitted  inio  his 
vifible  kingdom,  and  have  promifed  to  be 
fubmifiTive  and  obedient;  and  are  therefore 
bound  to  obey  biai  as  our  acknowledged 
Lord  and  Mafter.  We  are  alfo  baptized  into 
his  'kath  as  well  as  life.  By  baptTfm^  we  pro- 
fefs  our  belief  that  Chrift  a8u  'lly  fufFcred 
and  died  on  the  crofs^,  to  redeem  and  fave 
finners — not  merely  from  the  condemning 
guilt  of  fin,  but  alfo  from  its  reigning  power 
and  dominion  ;  from  all  our  unlawful  incli- 
nations, and  vicious  habits  and  praBices.  By 
baptifm,  we  acknowledge  ourfelves  '•  crucified 
^  with  Chrijl,  that  the  body  of  fin  might  be  def- 
"  troyed'' — that  we  are  obligated  hereby  to 
tnortify  our  flefhly  appetites  and  worldly 
lufts,  our  irregular  pa  (lions  and  finful  deeds 
of  the  bodv.  Having  become  dead  tofin^  as 
Chrifi  died  for  fin  ;  having,  in  conformity  to 
his  deaih,  criicrfied  our  old  man^  the  next  thing 
of  court'e  iv%  to  bury  ^^  this  body  of  fin''  The 
Apoftle  accordingly  obferves  :  '•''Therefore  we 
"  a'-e^  by  bal)nfuu  buried  with  Chrifi^  He  be- 
gins I  he  verfe  with  the  word  there fore<.  which 
fhows  that  this  paffage  is  connefted,  as  an 
inference,  with  fomething  that  preceded  it. 
We  are  bapiized  into  the  life  of  Chrift,  into 
the  death  of  Chrift,  and.  confequently.  into 
the  burial  of  Cnrift.  To  be  buried  with  Chrifi 
by  baptifn^   is  to  be  baptized  into  his  burial. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  1  B9 

This  is  evidently  the  import  and  fenfe  of  the 
expreflion. 

Baptifin  is  always  accompanied,  either  with 
an  implicit,  or  explicit  confeflion  of  faith. 
As  we  profefs  to  believe  that  Chrift  aftually 
lived  and  died,  fo  v;e  profefs  to  believe  that 
his  dead  body  was  laid  in  a  tomb,  where  it 
remained  three  days  and  three  nights.  And 
as  we  are  bound,  by  baptifm,  to  conform  to 
Chrift's  death  in  the  crucifixion  and  mortifi- 
cation of  our  fins,  fo  we  are  alfo  bound  to 
become  conformable  to  his  burial,  in  bury- 
ing fin.  We  mull  renounce  fin  utterly,  and 
bury  it  out  of  our  fight,  as  if  it  were  a  dead 
corpfe,  or  loathfome  carcafe.  It  is  in  this 
figurative  fenfe^lhdii  St.  Paul  ufed  the  word 
buried.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  had  refer- 
ence to  the  literal  burial  of  our  bodies,  by 
dipping  them  in  water. 

As  the  death  and  burial  of  Chrift,  prepared 
the  way  for  his  refurreftion  and  glorious  ex- 
altation, fo  the  death  and  burial  of  fin  are 
pre-reqaifite,  in  order  to  a  holy  and  virtuous 
life.  The  Apoftle  therefore  adds,  '*  that 
'*  like  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the  dead, 
*'  bv  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo 
«•  fhould  walk  in  newnefs  of  life."  Every 
word,  according  to  this  con{tru6lion,  is  in- 
telligible and  inftru8ive.  But  if  we  attempt 
to  underftand  the  paftage  literally,  we  imme- 
diately meet  with  infuperable  difficulties. 
The  Apoftle  ftyles  baptifm  a  circumcifion, 
more  direQly  than  he  calls  it  a  burial.     He 


190  -^N   APOLOGY   FOU 

endeavours  to  fatisfy  the  Coloflians,  that  they 
were  fufficiently  circumcifed,  being,  by  the 
"  circumcijion  of  ChriJ}.,  buried  with  him  in 
*^  baptiim."  But  the  baptifts  do  not  pretend^ 
that  the  mode  of  baptifm  literally  refembles 
circumcifion.  The  fame  Apoftle  alfo  tells 
us,  that  we  are  by  baptifm  buried  with  him  in- 
to death.  But  the  baptifts  do  not  under- 
ftand  the  word  deaths  as  here  mentioned,  lit- 
erally. They  do  not  fuppofe,  that  the  per- 
fon  baptized^  muft  be  literally  buried  under 
water,  until  literally  dead.  Why  then  fhould 
we  underftand  the  word  buried  literally  ?  No 
good  reafon  can  be  affigned.  We  are  com- 
pelled to  adopt  the  figurative  interpretation. 
We  are,  by  baptifm,  bound  to  mortify  and 
bury  our  fins,  and  arife  from  this  (late  of 
fpiritual  death,  to  a  new  and  fpiritual  life. 
This  is  evidently  the  Apcftle's  meaning. 

He  further  illuftrates  this  dodrine,  by  fay- 
ing, '•  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
"  in  the  likenefs  of  his  death,  we  fhall  alfo 
««  be  in  the  likenefs  of  his  refurreBion."  It 
appears  that  we  are  as  truly  baptized  into 
the  crucijixion  and  rffurreBion  of  Chrift,  as  in- 
to his  burial.  If  we  are  planted  together  in  the 
likenefs  of  his  deaths  that  is,  baptized  into  his 
crucifixion  and  burial,  ''  wefhall  olfobe  in  the 
"  likenefs  of  his  refurredion.''  By  baptifm.  we 
profefs  to  believe  thatChrift, having  died,  and 
being  laid  in  the  tomb,  on  the  third  day,  a- 
rofe  from  the  dead,  as  the  firfi  fruits  of  them 
thatfle^t. 


IJJFANT    BAPTISM.  1^1 

The  word  planted,  according  to  its  confi- 
mon   and   literal  ufe,   has   reference  to   the 
feeds  of  vegetables.     When  corn  or  grain  is 
planted   or  fovved,   it   dies  and   rots   in  the 
ground,  and  then   the  blade  fprings  up  and 
bears  fruit.     The  Apodie,  therefore,  has  re- 
peatedly made  ufe  of  this  figure,  in  order  to 
reprefent  the  death  and  refurreftion  of  man- 
kind.    We  are  already  raifed,  by  the  refur- 
re6lion  of  Jefus  Chrift  from  the  dead,  to  the 
profpeftand  hop-e  of  life  and  immoriality  be- 
yond the  grave.    We  are  bound,  by  our  bap- 
tifmal  engagements,  to  arife  imm^diaiely  from 
a  ftate  of  fpiriiual  deaths    and  become   alive 
in  the  caufe  of  religion  and  virtue.      ''  ^J y^ 
"  he  rifen  with  Chrifi,''  fays  ilie  Apoftle,   "/eel 
^'  thofe  things  which  are  ahove^  whtre  Chrift  Jit- 
"  ttth  at  the  right  hand  of  God.     Set  your  affcc- 
^'  tions  on  things  above,  and  not  on  things  on  the 
''  earth  ;   and  when  Chrijl.  who  is  our  life,  /kail 
*'  appear^  then  Jliall  ye  alfo  apptar  with  him  in 
^'  glory."" 

In  the  church  of  England,  the  ordinance 
of  baptilm  is  adminiftered  with  the  fign  cf  the 
crofs^  as  being  a  refemblance  of  Ch rift's  ^f^^A, 
or  crucifixion.  The  Baptifts  adminifler  this 
ordinance  by  immerjion^  which  they  fuppofe 
refembles  the  burial  of  Chrift.  The  Prefby- 
terians  and  Congregationaiifts  in  general, 
(though  not  ftrenuous  as  to  the  modej  com- 
monly adminifter  baptifm  by  affvfion  orfprink- 
ling,  which  method  they  consider  as  having  a 
fuitable  allufion  to   the  pouring  out  of  God's 


192  AN   APOLOGY   FOR 

Spirit^  and  fprinkling  of  Chrijl's  llocd^  which 
are  faid  to  ran6lifv  and  ckanfe  us  from  oil  fin. 
But  \\\2ii  figurative  likenefs^  which  the  Apoftle 
particularly  menijons,  is  of  a  moral  nature, 
and  evidently  alliides  to  the  crucifixion^  and 
burial^  and  refurreHion  of  Ch rift.  As  Ch rift 
was,  literally,  crucified,  To  we  are  faid,  by 
baptifm  (in  figurative  language)  to  have  cru- 
cified our  old  man — our  fins.  And  as  Chrift 
was,  literally,  buried,  {o  we  are  faid,  by  bap- 
tifm fin  figurative  language)  to  have  buried 
our  fins.  And  as  Chrift  arofe,  literally,  from 
the  dead,  fo  we  are  faid,  by  baptifm  (in  fig- 
urative language)  to  ari(e  from  the  death  of 
fin,  to  a  new  and  fpiri(ual  life.  The  whole 
reprefentation,  acrordij:g  to  the  Apoftle,  is 
figurative.  It  is  a  continued  metaphor — an 
inftruBive,  ftriking  allegory^  happily  calcu- 
lated to  teach  us  the  necelTuy  of  a  genuine 
renovation,  in  our  temper  and  behaviour. 

If,  Sir,  after  all  that  has  been  faid,  you 
fhouid  fuppofi  that  dipping  was  pra61ifed  in 
the  days  of  the  Apoftles,  and  that  St.  Paul 
had  probably  a  reference  to  this  mode  of 
baptizing,  your  fnppofition  will  not  prove 
the  point,  but  take  it,  wiihout  proof,  for 
granted.  So  far  as  we  have  any  account 
from  hiftory,  the  mode  of  baptizing  has  been 
various  (and  there  might  have  been  different 
modes,  even  in  the  apoftolick  age.)  How- 
ever in  thofe  times  and  places,  where  dipping 
anciently  prevailed  moft,  it  was  never  deem- 
ed effeniial. 


"1-NFANT    BAPTISM.  I93 

I  will  conclude  thefe  remarks,  by  obferv- 
ing,  that  alliijions^  in  favour  of  baptizing  by 
affiijion  or  fprinkling^  are  numerous  and  for- 
cible. The  blood  of  Chrift  is  called  the 
blood  nffprinkling.  The  fanftifying  influences 
of  God's  Spirit  are  faid  to  be  poured  out  upon 
21s,  Our  hearts  are  faid  to  h'<:  fpr inkle d — our 
confciences  are  faid  to  be  fprinkkd.  The 
prophet^  fays,  /  will  fprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you  and  ye  piall  he  clean — andfoJJiall  he  fprinkle 
many  nations^  &c.  Sec, 

Now,  Sir,  on  fuppofition  the  word  dipped^ 
had  been  ufed  in  all  thefe,  and  in  fimilar 
places,  would  notthe  baptifls  have  told  us,  that 
they  alluded  eicprefsly  to  their  mode  of  bap- 
tifm  ?  If  Ezekiel,  when  perfonating  the  Mefli- 
ah,  had  declared,  "  then  will  I  dip  you  in  clean 
"  water  andye  JJiall  be  cleari  ;  and  from  all  your 
*'  fihhinefs  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I 
"  cleanfe  you;" — if  Ifaiah,  when  prophefy- 
ing  concerning  Chrift,  had  faid,  "  fo  fhall 
""  my  fervant  dip  many  nations;"  fhould  you 
not  think  that  thefe  expreffions  were  flrong 
argum.ents  in  proof  of  dippings  as  being  the 
gofpel  mode  of  baptizing  ?  All  I  afK  is  this, 
that  they  may  now  be  confidered  as  argu- 
ments equally  ftrong  and  conclufive,  in  fa- 
vour o^  fpnnkling, 

I  am.  Sir,  &:c, 
R 


1^4  ^^    APOLOGY    FOR 

LETTER     XIX. 

SIR, 

VV  E  are  informed  by  the  Evangelifts, 
*'  that  John*  the  forerunner  of  Chrift,  was 
'*  called  a  Baptifl^  and  that  he  baptized  per- 
''  fons  in  the  river  Jordan^  and  in  Enon,  be- 
'•  caufe  there  was  much  water  there,''  Thefe 
circumftances,  which  attended  the  miniftry 
and  baptifm  of  John,  are  confidered  by  you, 
as  being  very  powerful  arguments  in  favour 
of  immerfion,  even  to  the  utter  exclufion  of 
all  other  modes  of  baptizing.  We  will  en- 
deavour to  examine  them  with  fuitable  care 
and  impartiality.  But  let  it  be  premifed, 
that  John  did  not  baptize  perfons,  '' in  the 
«•  7iame  of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Scn^  and  of  the 
"  Holy  GhoJlJ"  His  baptifm  was  a  religious 
rite,  which  he  adminiftered  under  the  Mofaic 
inftitution.  It  cannoi,  therefore,  be  thought 
an  indifpenfable  rule,  in  all  relpe^^s,  for 
chriftians  under  the  new  tejlament  iifptnfaiion  ; 
which,  the  Apoille  exprefsly  informs  us,  was 
not  in  force  until  the  death  of  J  ejus  Chrif}^  ths 
tefator. 

John  was  the  lafl;  and  greateft  prophet  un- 
der the  law.  He  obferved  all  the  requifi- 
.tions  of  that  rigorous  inftitution,  with  the 
ftri6ieft;  aufterity  of  manners.  It  was  pre- 
diQed,  that  this  mefjenger  of  Chrif  fliould  go  be- 
fore him^  in  the  fpirit  and  power  of  Elias ;  uho^ 
in  the  days  of  khzh^fled  into  the  wildernefs. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  I95 

and  was  there  fed  by  the  ravens.  We  are 
accordingly  told,,  "  that  John  came  neither  eating 
"  bread,  nor  drinking  wine,  and  the  Jews/aid  he 
'•  hath  a  devil. — The  fon  of  man  came  eating  and 
'■•  drinking;,  and  they  faid,  behold  a  glutton  and 
^'  wine-bibber  ;  a  friend  of  pulUcans  and  fcnners,"' 
It  is  evident  that  the  praQice  of  John,  in 
private  hf;_^  and  in  his  official  character,  was 
never  intended  as  an  example,  which  we  are 
bound  implicitly  to  imitate.  John,  previouf- 
Jy  to  his  undertaking  the  facerdotal  office, 
lived  the  folitary  life  of  a  hermit,  in  the  wil- 
dernefs.  Are  w^e  obii^^ed  to  quit  the  fociety 
of  men,  and  live  fequeftered  from  all  our 
f.'iends  and  cannexions,  in  fome  lonely, 
6cQ2Lxy  defer'.  ?^ — "  John  was  clothed  with 
'^  camel's  hair,  and  had  a  leathern  girdieabout 
''  his  loins ;  his  meat  alfo  was  locuft  and  wild 
"^  honey."  Are  we  under  obligations  to  re- 
linquifh  the  Gomforts  and  conveniences  of 
this  life,  and  live  as  he  lived,  on  the  fame 
kind  of  food,  and  drefs  as  he  dreffed.  with 
the  fame  kind  of  clothing  ?  Jobn  made  no 
ufe  of  the  temple  or  fynag'ogues,  where  the 
Jews  always  reforted  for  public  worffiip  and 
inftruftion^  but  preached  in  the  field,  at  a 
diftance  from  the  city,  and  from  the  habita- 
tions of  mankind  ;  and  undoubtedly  on  the 
bmk  of  Jordan,  or  fome  other  natural  ftream 
or  fountain  ;  for  it  was  abfolutely  impoffible 
for  him,  and  his  hearers  to  fubfift  without 
water.  But  fhall  we  forfake  oi^r  dweiling- 
houfes — our  meeting  houfes,  confecrated  to 


196  AN    APOLOGY   POR 

the  fervices  of  religion,  and  become  field- 
preachers  ?  Shall  we  leave  our  homes,  and 
encamp  in  fome  grove,  on  the  brink  of  Tome 
river  or  pond,  and  invite  the  people,  from 
ail  the  neighbouring  and  remote  towns  and 
parifhes,  to  aflemble  at  faid  place,  for  the  pur- 
pofe  of  being  religioufiy  inftruQed  and  bap- 
tized. 

I  am  perfuaded,  you  do  not  fuppofe,  that 
we  are  obligated  to  imitate  the  example  of 
John,  in  every  particular.  You  do  not  be- 
lieve, that  we  are  bound  to  live  in  the  wilder- 
nefs  as  he  lived,  and  drefs  as  he  dreffed,  and 
preach  as  be  conftantly  preached,  in  the 
field,  on  the  bank  of  fome  river.  What  rea- 
fon  have  you  then  to  fuppofe,  that  we  are 
indifpenfably  obliged  to  imitate  him,  with" 
refpetl  to  the  place  and  mode  of  baptifm  ? 
I  mean,  on  fuppofition  it  could  be  fairly 
proved,  that  he  actually  baptized  perfons,  by, 
dipping  them  in  Jordan.  We  live  under  a 
milder  difpenfation.  None  of  Chrijis  "  ccm- 
*•  mandments  are  grievous.  His  yoke  is  eafy^  and 
••  his  burden  is  Ught,''  efpecially  when  com- 
pared with  the  Jeivifli  ritual. 

If  it  fliould  be  admitted  that  John  baptized 
by  immerfion,  it  will  not  follow  that  this  is 
the  only  lawful  and  valid  mode  of  haplifm^  under 
the  gofpel.  For  it  is  evident^  that  chriftian* 
are  not  required  to  imitate  the  praftice  of 
John,  in  all  refpe61s.  You  cannot  therefore 
infer,  merely  from  his  example,  that  they  are 
bound  to  adopt  the  fame  mode  of  baptizing. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


197 


I  do  not,  however,  mean  to  concede  that 
John  baptized  by  imrnerfion.  There  is  not 
a  perfon  living,  who  knows,  certainly,  in 
what  mode  he  adminiflered  the  ordinance  of 
baptifai.  It  will,  I  think,  appear  highly 
probable,  when  the  fubjett  is  properly  in- 
veftigdted,  that  John  aClaaily  baptized  by 
affafion  or  fprinkling. 

Bill  it  is  faid,  that  John  baptized  in  the  riv- 
er Jordan^  A  queftion  immediately  arifes, 
viz.  Does  the  word  in,  as  here  mentioned, 
refer  to  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or  to  the  place, 
where  the  ordinance  was  adminiftered.  Let 
us  compare  this  exprellion  w^ith  other  paffa- 
ges,  which  have  reference  to  the  fame  bap- 
lifm.  It  is  faid  in  Maik  i,  4,  "  that  he  bap- 
^'  tized  in  the  wildernef^^."  And  in  ]ohrv  i, 
28,  "That  be  baptized  in  Bethabara*  beyond 
"  Jordan."  And  \x\  the  3d  chapter,  23d 
verfe,  "  that  he  baptized  in  Enon,"  which 
was  not  the  name  of  a  river,  but  of  a  tra6l 
of  land,  that  lay  between  Jordan  and  Salem. 
Now  it  is  unqueftionably  plain,  that  the  word 
in^  as  ufed  in  thefe  three  different  pafl^.ges, 
hasexprefs  reference  to  Vat  place,  where  John 
baptized,  and  not  to  the  mode  of  adminiiler- 
ing  the  ordinance.  Ki  John  was  in  the 
wi  dernefs — in  Beihabara — and  in  Enon, 
when  he  baptized  .;  fo  he  was,  en  anoiher  oc- 
cafion,  in  or  at  Jordan.  The  prepondon 
in,  may  have  reference  to  the  place,  where 
John  was,  when  he  adminiliered  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm,  and  not  to  the  mode  in 
R  2 


198  AN    APOLOGY    FOa 

which  he  baptized.  It  is  probable,  being  at 
a  diftance  from  any  houfe,  and  having  no 
fuitable  vefTel,  which  could  be  conveniently 
ufed,  that  they  fometimes  went  to  the  river 
itfelf  ;  and  perhaps  a  few  fteps  into  the  water, 
in  order  to  adminifter  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm.  But  this  does  not  determine  the  mode. 
It  does  not  prove  that  he  plunged  them.  He 
might  notwithftanding,  take  up  the  water  in 
his  hand,  and  fprinkle  or  pour  it  on  their 
heads.  Befides,  there  is  no  necefiify  of  fup- 
pofing^  that  they  did  fo  much  as  ftep  into  the 
edge  of  the  river.  For  you  well  know,  that 
the  Greek  prepofition  en^  very  commonly 
fignifies  at^  by,  with,  Sec,  In  the  five  firft 
books  of  the  new  teftament,  according  to  Mr. 
Chaplin's  account,  whofe  (latement  is  un- 
doubtedly correft,  this  very  uord  is  rendered 
at,  by  our  tranflators,  no  lefs  than  53  times. 
It  is  rendered  ^ji;,  44  times;  Siud  with,  42 
times,  Sec.  Now,  if  the  original  word  m, 
had  been  tranflated  into  the  Englifh  word  at^ 
the  meaning  would  have  correfponded  e>a8:- 
]y  with  the  fenfe  of  thofe  other  palTages,  we 
juil  now  cited.  It  would  have  been  expref- 
five  of  the  place,  where  John  baptized.  For 
the  places,  at  which  he  adminiflered  baptifm, 
were  the  wildernefs,  Bethabai'a,  Jordan,  and  E- 
non.  John  baptized  in,  or  at  the  river  Jor- 
dan. This  is  mentioned,  as  being  one  of 
tho'e  places,  where  he  preached,  and  where 
he  adminiftered  ihe  ordinance  of  bapiifra. 


I-NFAN7    BA?TIS!.f.  lg§ 

It  is,  however,  very  evident,  that  John 
did  not  commence  his  miniftrat.ions  at  Jor- 
dan, nor  at  Enon.  We  are  informed  in  John 
X,  40,  '•  Thai;  he  at  ftrjl  baptized  heycnd  Jordan'' 
HdiVing  fpent  a  life  of  folitude,  for  many 
years,  \n  the  wildernefs  of  Beihabara,  be- 
yond Jordan,  there  he  began  to  preach  and 
baptize.  We  have  no  account  of  rivers  or 
ftreams  of  v/ater,  in  that  country.  It  wa5, 
probably,  a  dry  and  barren  place.  Accord- 
ingly, when  his  fame  had  fpread  abroad,  and 
the  inhabitants  of  "  Jtrujalem^  and  all  Judea^ 
"  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan^'  had 
aflfembled  to  attend  on  his  miniftry,  they  were 
but  poorly  accommodated.  John,  it  feems, 
removed  to  ^orJ^;?,  and  afterward  to  Enon,. 
hecaufe  there  was  much  n-ater  there^  or  as  it  is  in 
the  original  (polla  itdata)  many  waters,  that  is, 
many  rivulets  and  fprings.  Much  v;ater  was 
certainly  needed,  in  that  fultry  climate,  for 
the  ref"re(hment  and  various  ufes  of  fuch  an 
immenfe  concourfe  of  people,  collcded  in 
the  open  neld,  at  a  great  diftance  from  home^ 
with  their  horfes,  and  mules,  and  affes,  and 
camels.  Some  v;ere,  undoubtedly,  going  a- 
way,  an-d  others  conftantly  coming.  But  the 
encampment,  probably,  lafted  more  than  a 
year.  Every  perfon  of  reflexion  muft  be 
convinced,  that  the  fituation,  which  John 
made  choice  of,  was  very  convenient  and 
neceffary  for  their  accommodation,  even  if 
the  mode  of  baptizing  were  that  of  fprink'ing. 


200  ^^   APOLOGY    r©R 

MJnifters,  who  no^V  baptize  by  afFafion  or 
fprinkling,  have  no  occafion  of  going  to  a 
river;  yet  if  they  were  circumftanced  as 
John  was,  in  a  hot,  rocky  country,  alnrioft 
deftitute  of  wells  ;  if  they  had  vaft  congre- 
gations, and  no  meeting-houfes ;  and  were 
about  to  encamp  in  the  field  a  number  of 
months,  with  their  people,  for  the  purpofe  of 
preaching  and  of  adminiftering  the  ordinan- 
ces of  the  gofpel — they  would,  undoubtedly, 
choofe  a  place,  fimilar  to  that  of  Jordan  or 
Enon.  We  cannot  therefore  infer,  from  the 
circumflances  of  the  place,  where  John  was 
ftationed  and  preached,  that  he  baptized  by 
immerfion. 

The  truth  of  the  foregoing  remarks  may 
be  further  illuftrated,  by  attending  to  the 
praBice  of  ChriJI^s  difciples,  previoufly  to  his 
crucifixion.  For  while  John  was  preaching,- 
and  adminiftering  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
in  the  country  of  Enon,  they  were  preaching 
and  baptizing  in  the  land  of  Judea;  as  we 
read  in  John  iii,  22  "  After  thefe  thing^^  came 
''  Jefus  and  his  difcipks  into  the  land  of  Jiideay 
*'  and  there  he  tarried  -with  them.^  and  baptized.''^ 
It  was  told  John,  that  Chrift  baptized,  and  that 
all  men  came  to  him.  He  mujl  increafe^  replied 
John,  but  I  mujl  dccreafe.  John  iv,  1,  2. 
'•  When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how  the 
'^  Pharifees  had  heard  ihat  Jefus  made  andbap- 
"  tized  more  difcipks  than  John  (Though  Jefus 
*'  himfelf  baptized  not,  but  his  difciples)  he 
«•  left  Judea, and  departed  again  into  Galilee." 


INT-ANT    BAPTISM.  201 

It  is  undeniably  evident,  that  the  difciples 
of  Chrift,  previoufly  to  his  crucifixion,  bap- 
tized a  vajl  number  of  people.  But,  Sir,  we 
do  not  find  a  fingle  word  faid,  about  Enon,  or 
Jordan^  or  any  other  river^  or  brook^  or 
pond  of  water.  It  is  not  even  intimated,  that: 
they  ever  dipped  di  perfon,  or  that  they  ever 
went  to  a  natural  Jlream  or  fountain  ofwater^ 
for  the  purpofe  of  baptizing.  What  can  be 
the  reafon  ?  Why  do  we  hear  fo  much  faid 
at  the  prefent  day,  concerning  th-e  baptifm 
of  John,  and  fo  liitle  concerning  the  baptifm 
of  Chriil  ?  (John  was  a  few  months  older 
than  Chrili,  and  began  his  miniftry  a  little 
fooner;  but  they  v;ere  contemporaries,  and 
both  employed  in  preaching,  and  in  bap- 
tizing, at  the  fame  time,  and  among  the  fame 
people.)  We  have  already. anticipated  the 
reafon.  The  difciples  of  Chrifl  were  not 
£eid  preachers.  They  were  itinerant  preach- 
ers. Chrift  fent  them  forth,  repeatedly,  two 
and  two,  Ke  ordered  them  to  go  from  houfe 
to  houje ;  and  from  city  to  ci;y.  They, 
preached  in  private  houfes  and  fynagogaes; 
and  where  they  preached,  there  they  un- 
doubtedly baptized.  Accordingly,  if  John 
had  been  an  itinerant  or  travelling  preacher, 
we  fhould  never  have  heard  of  his  baptizing 
people  at  Jordan,  or  Enon.  This  Incident, 
on  v/hich  the  baptifts  lay  fo  much  (Irefs, 
feems  to  have  been  wholly  owing  to  the  pe- 
culiarities of  his  education  in  the  wildernefs,. 
and  of  his  circumftances  as  a  field  preacher. 


202  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

There  appears  to  have  been  a  perfeB:  con- 
fiftency  throughout  the  whole  of  John's  cha- 
ra61er  and  conduB.  He  refided  in  the  wil- 
deniefs,  and  there  he  commenced  his  miniftra- 
tions — in  Bethahara^  beyond  Jordan.  But  when 
his  audience  became  vaftly  numerous,  and  a 
more  convenient  ftation  was  necefTary,  he  fix- 
ed his  ftand  on  the  banks  of  Jordan,  and  a- 
mong  the  fmaller  ftreamsoF  Enon.  Wherev- 
er he  lived,  there  he  preached  ;  and  where 
he  preached,  there  be  baptized.  It  v/ould 
have  been  as  unnatural  for  him,  to  have  left 
the  encam^pment,  and  have  gone  to  a  fyna- 
gogue  or  dwelling-houfe,  in  order  to  baptize 
per  Tons,  as  it  would  be  for  us,  to  leave  the 
meeting-houre,  and  go  to  the  field,  for  that 
purpofe. 

The  difciples  of  Chrift  conduced  with  the 
fame  confillency  and  propriety.  We  have 
no  account  of  their  going  to  a.  river^  in  or- 
der to  adminiiter  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 
Where  they  preached,  there  they  baptized. 
And  if  miniftersof  the  gofpel,  at  the  prefent 
day,  would  be  equally  confident,  they  muft 
either  baptize  in  the  meeting-houfes,  where 
they  preach,  or  elfe  they  muft  become  field- 
preachers,  and  encamp  and  preach  in  the 
fieldj  where  they  baptize. 

I  am^  Sir,  Sec 


A 


INFANT  BAPTISM,  203 

LETTER     XX. 

SIR, 


S  was  propofed,  we  have  examined  the 
places  where  John  adminiftered  baptifm.  We 
can  find  no  circurnftance,  from  which  it  ap- 
pears, that  he   did  baptize,  by  dipping  per- 
fons  under  the  water.     It  is  not  faid  that  he 
dipped  them.      It  is  not  intimated  that  any 
preparations  were  made  for  the  change  of 
drefs,  or  that  fuitable  accommodations  were 
provided  for  the  different  fexes.     The  num- 
ber baptized,  wasprodigioufly  great.    We  arc 
told,  that  Jeriifakm^  the  metropolis  of   the 
nation,  and  that  all  Judta^   and  all  the  region 
round   about  Jordan^    went  out   to   him,   and 
were   baptized    by    him,   in   or   at    Jordan. 
Now  it  fecms   fcarcely  fuppofable,  that  one 
man  fhould  have  had  fufficient  ftrength — that 
he  fhould  have  been  able  to  (land  in  the  water 
day  afrer  day,  and  long  enough  at  a  time,  to 
dip  fuch  an  amazing    multitude    of   people, 
without   deftroying   his  own  health  and  life. 
I  do  not  fay  that  the  thing  was  abfolutely  im- 
pra6ticable  ;  but  it  certainly  feems  almoft  in- 
credible, upon  natural  principles ;  and  we  have 
no  reafon  to  think,  that  John  was  favoured 
\i\\\\  fupernatural  afliftance  ;  for  it  is  exprefsly 
faid,  concerning  him,  "  that  he  did  no  miracle.'' 
On  the  other  fide,  John  has  told  us,  "  that 
«'  he  was  fent   to  baptize   with  water."     "  I 
«  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  ihall 


^04     ^  AN   APOLOGY   FdR 

"baptize  you  mth  the  Holy  Ghofl:  and  wM 
"'fire."  This  manner  of  expreffion.  as  we 
have  already  obferved,  indicates  that  the 
water  was  ufed  as  the  inftrumental  element; 
and  applied  by  the  hand  of  John  to  the  per- 
fons  baptized.  Bapiifm  with  water,  is  here 
mentioned,  as  an  emblem  of  baptifm  with  the 
Holy  Ghofl;  :  The  fanHifying  influences  of 
God's  Spirit,  are  reprefented  in  the  language 
of  fcripture,  as  htiugjlied  forth  and  poured  out 
upon  mankind^  like  rain.  This  common  rep- 
refentaiion  is  ftriBly  and  ft;rikingly  applica- 
ble to  the  pra6lice  of  bapiizing  with  water, 
according  to  the  ufual  mode  of  affufion  or 
fprinkling. 

Although  John  adminiftered  baptifm,  m  or 
at  the  river  Jordan,  and  at  Enon,  neverthe- 
lefs  he  baptized  them  zoith  water — with  the 
water  of  Jordan  and  Enon — or  with  the  river 
Jordan^  as  that  paffage  might  have  been  tranf- 
lated  ;  and  then  the  different  padages  would 
have  correfponded.  For,  according  to  our 
tranflation,  it  is  faid,  no  lefs  than  four  times, 
that  "  John  baptized  with  (en)  water."  We 
have  obferved,  that  the  original  prepofition 
en^  which  is  often  rendered  in  and  at^  is  alfo 
frequently  tranfiated  into  the  Englifh  words 
by  and  with.  The  words  by  and  wiih^  are  com- 
monly ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe,  and  denote 
the  inftrumentality  of  the  fucceeding  word. 
In  order  to  evince  the  trath  of  this  obferva- 
tion,  on  a  former  occafion,  I  quoted  a  cer- 
tain pafTage  of  fcripture,  about  the  fenfe   of 


INFANT     BAPTISM,  205 

Which   there  is  no  difpute.     You  and  I,  and 
every  body  elfe,  are  entirely  agreed  as  to  its 
meaning.     Now  as  one  fuch  paifage   is  of 
more  importance  in  the  prefent  controverfy, 
than  a  thouiand  doubtful  or  difputable    paf- 
fages,  I  will  again  recite  it.     The  Jews  faid, 
«  that   our   Saviour   caft   out  devils   by  (en) 
<f  Beelzebub."     "  Chrift  replied,  if  I  by  (en) 
«  Beelzebub  caft  out  devils,  by  (en)  whom  do 
*«  your   children    caft  them  out  ?    But  if  I 
"  with  (en)  the  Jinger  of  God  cajl  out  devils,"  Sec. 
This   fentence  is   unqueftionably    tranflated 
right  ;  for  it  will  admit  of  no  other  tranfla- 
tion.      In  this    fhort  fentence,  we   find   the 
word,  immediately  following  the  prepofition 
en,  ufed   inftrumentally,  four  times.     A.^  the 
finger  of  God  was  the  injlrument  with  which 
Chrift  caft  out  devils;   fo  v;ater  was  probably 
the   injlrument,   in   the   hand   of  John,   with 
which  he  adminiftered  baptifm. 

Although  John  baptized  fo  many  perfons, 
Jefus  Chrift  is  the  only  individual,  whofe 
name  is  particularly  mentioned;  as  inMatthew 
iii,  16,  and  Mark  i,  9,  10.  It  is  faid  that  our 
Saviour  was  baptized  oj  John  in  Jordan,  The 
Greek  prepofiiions,  originally  ufed,  are  m 
and  en,  and  very  frequently  fignify  at  and  to^ 
as  well  as  m ;  and  are  often  tranfiated  into 
each  of  thefe  different  words.  However,  if 
it  fhould  be  fuppoled  that  Chrift  aBuaily 
ftepped  within  the  verge  of  the  river,  this 
will  not  prove  that  he  was  dipped ;  for  he 
might,  notwithftanding,  have  been  fprinkled, 
S 


206  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

It  is  further  added,  that  being  laptized^  htvjtnt 
up^  flraightway^  out  of  the  toater.    If  we  (hould 
underftand  this  expreflion   literally,  it  would 
not  decide  the    queftion,  and  determine  the 
mode  in    which   he  was   baptized.     But,    as 
none  pretend  that  our  tranflation  is  perfeft, 
it  will  be  proper  for  us  to  confult  the  original 
text.     The  Greek  prepofition  apo,  which  is 
here   tranflated   out  of^  agreeably   to  its  mofl 
common  figniiicaiion,  as  ufed  by   the  Apof- 
tles,  might  have  been  rendered  from.     For 
according   to   Mr.    Chaplin's    account,    our 
tranflaiors  have,  in  tranflating   the   five  firft 
books  of  the  new  teftament,    tranflated   the 
original    word  <7^,   into   the    Englifh    word 
Jj-cm^  235  times ;  and  into  the  Englifh   words 
out  of  but  42  times;  which  is  more  than  yft;^ 
to  one^  againfl  the  prefent  tranflation.     Now, 
Sir,  if  our  tranflators,  inftead   of  faying  that 
Jefus  was  baptized  in  Jordan,  had  faid,  that 
he  was   baptized  at^    or  with  Jordan — if,  in- 
ftead of  faying,  that  he   came    up  out  of  the 
water,  they  had   faid,  that  he  came  up  fro7n 
the  water,  I  am  ready  to  think,  there  would 
have  been  but  very    few  baptifts  in  this  part 
of  the  country. 

But  you  tell  us,  in  your  pamphlet  upon 
clofe  communion.  "  that  no  perfon  can 
'•  with  a  very  good  face  deny  that  John, 
'•  Chrift's  forerunner,  was  a  baptift.  Chrift 
'•  was  baptized  by  a  bapiift,  in  Jordan;  he  was 
^'  therefore  a  baptift.  Chrift's  difcipies  were 
"  baptized  in   Jordan  or  in  Enon,  and  by  a 


INFANT    BAPTliSM.  20/ 

*•  baptift;  the  fair  conclufion  is,  they  all  were 
"  baptifts."  I  prefume,  ihat  you  are  the  firft 
writer  of  learning  and  {"enfe^  who  ever  made 
ufe  of  this  argument.  If  therefore  the  argu- 
ment has  any  merit,  it  belongs  to  you,  ex- 
ciufiveiy.  But,  Sir,  were  you  ever  acquaint- 
ed with  any  perfon,  who  aftually  denied  that 
John  was  a  baptiR  ?  Do  not  we  all  know 
that  he  is,  .repeatedly,  called  a  hapiift  ? — - 
That  this  was  even  his  farname  ?  We  do  not, 
however,  know  that  Jefus  Chiift  was  a  bap- 
tift. He  is  no  where  denominated  a  baptift, 
in  the  facred  volume.  John,  according  to 
the  fcriptures,  was  the  only  perfon  of  that 
denomination-,  durina  the  age  of  Chrift  and 
of  his  Apoftles.  But,  in  what  fenfe  was  the 
word  baptift  originally  ufed  ?'  This  is  the 
queftion.  And  to  me  it  feems  very  ftrange, 
that  yon,  v/ho  appear  to  have  been  fo  fond 
of  confuiting  lexicons  and  diBionaries  on 
other  occaHons,.  (hould  wholly  negleft  them 
in  the  prefent  cafe.  Johnson  and  Perry,  in 
defining  the  word,  fay,  "  that^  a  baptift  is  he^ 
"  who  adminijiers  baptifm ^  and  in  this  defini- 
tion, I  prefume,  they  agrr e  exaftly  with  all 
other  diQionaries,  whether  Englifh,  Latin^. 
or  Greek,  The  original  Greek  word  is  bap^ 
istes ;  and  its  fignification  is  a  baptizer^  or  he 
who  adminifters  baptifm,  not  he  who  receives 
it.  John  adminiftered  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm  to  a  prodigious  number  of  people,  and 
on  this  account  he  obtained  the  furname  oF 
baptift,  or   the   baptizer  ;    but  thofe  perfon 3 


20S  AN.  APOLOGY    ?OR 

whom  he  baptized  were  never  called  baptiils. 
John  obtained  the  name  of  baptift  or  bap- 
tizer,.  merely  in  confeqaence  of  the  vaft  num- 
ber that  he  in  perfon  baptized,  and  not  on 
account  of  the  mode^  in  which  he  adminifter- 
ed  the  ordinance.  This  is  another  and  dif- 
iinH  queftion,  though  always  vQiy  improper 
\y  blended  together  by  you. 

The  difciples  of  Chrift,  confidered  con- 
jointly, adminiftered  baptifm  to  very  many 
perfons ;  but  no  one  individual  among  them 
ever  baptized  a  fufficient  number,  to  obtain 
the  name  of  baptift  or  baptizer.  This  name 
was  appropriated,  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  to  John, 
as  his  peculiar  title.  N0W5  Sir,  by  what  au- 
thority have  you  told  us,  that  the  difciples  oi 
Chrift  were  baptifts  ?  By  what  authority  have 
you.  alTeried  that  Ghrift  himrelf  was  a  baptift^ 
who  never  baptized  a  fingle  perfon,  in  any 
part  of  his  life  ? 

Thofe  perfons,  who  formerly  denied  the 
lawfulnefs  and  validity  of  infant  baptifm,  and 
who  held  that  total  immerfion  was  abfokite- 
ly  elTential,  v/e  find,  in  ancient  hiftory,  were 
CdiWtd-  Anahaptijls.  But  not  being  fatisfied 
with  this  appellation,  they  ufurped  the  name 
of  baptifts.  We  have  no  difpofition  to  con- 
tend about  the  name.  But  in  order  to  cor- 
reft  mifreprefentaiions.  and  prevent  miftakes 
in  future,  it  is  neceflary  to  retain  the  original 
and  primary  fignification  of  the  word.  I 
have  therefore  ftiown,  that  the  word  baptift, 
originally  meant  ?i  baptizer^  or  one   who  ad-. 


INFANT     B  A  P  T  IS  W.  20g 

mini/l'ered  haptifm.  Accordingly,  John  was  a 
baptid,  and  with  the  grcateft  propriety  al- 
ways called  by  this  name.  But  jefus  Chrift 
was  not  a  bapiiii,  and  never  called  by  this 
name  in  the  holy  fcriptares.  You  are  proba- 
bly the  liril  perfon,  who  ever  ailerted,  pub- 
iickly,  that  Jefus  Chrift  was  a  baptift.  I  do 
not  know  whether  you  mean  to  be  under- 
ftood  according  touhe  primitive,  or  modern 
import  of  the  word!^  The  aUenion,  however, 
can  never  be  juftified. — VVhat^  Sir,  fhould 
you  think  of  Robert  Barclay,  if,  in  his  Apolo- 
gy for  the  Quakers,  he  had  exprefsiv  declared 
that  Jefu5  Chrift  was  a  Quaker  ?  Should  yoa 
not  fuppofe  him  guilty  of  the  moft  audacious, 
if  not  impious,  arrogance  ? — Is  not  this  a  true 
pitlure  of  your  own  conduQ  ?  Why  then, 
may  not  we  retort,  with  equal  propriety,  and 
fay,  tkou  art  the  man  ?■ 

The  Evangelifts  have  not  intimated,  that 
Ghrift  was  dipped- — they  have  not  even  faid 
that  he  xocnt  into  the  water.  Why  then  fhould 
we  fuppofe,  that  he  came  out  of  the  v.-ater  ?  It 
is  undeniably  evident,  that  the  Greek  prepo- 
\v\on  apo^  v/hich  is  here  rendered  out  of^  com- 
monly and  pr^operly  figniRes  Jrorn^  and  is 
generally  fo  tranOated  in  the  new  teftamenf. 
Jordan  is  the  place,  where  John  baptized 
him,  but  this  does  not  dellgnate  the  modcj 
in  which  his  haptifm  was  adminiftered. 

On  the  other  fide,  it  appears  highly  proba- 
ble,   from    the   nature,    dcfign   and    circum- 
S  % 


210  AN   ATOLOGY    ?0K 

ftaflres  of  Chrift's  baptifm,  that  he  was  a6\ui 
ally  baptized  by  afFufion  or  fprinkling. 

Dr.  Lathrop  fays,  "  the  baptifm  of  Chrid 
*'  was  his  public  inauguration.  Upon  this 
''^occafion,  he  was  declared,  from  heaven,  to 
''  he  the  Son  of  God,  It  is  well  known,  that 
"  perfons  were  of  old,  by  God's  appoint- 
"  ment,  confecrated  to  public  offices  fefpe- 
"  cially  ihofe  of  prophet,  prieft,  and  king, 
"  which  Chrift  fu{iainedj?l)y  the  ceremony  of 
'^  anointing,  or  pouring  oil  on  the  head. 
^^''  The  baptifm  of  Chrift  anfwered  to  that 
"  ceremony.  The  prophet  Ifaiah*  fpeaking 
''  in  the  perfon  of  Chrifl:,  obferves,  chap.  Ixi. 
•*  1.  The  fpirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me^  becaitfe 
"  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings,  Sec, 
'•  The  Evangelift  fays,  Jefus  bei?7g  baptized, 
"  came  vp  from  the  water,  and  the  Spirit  of  Goa 
^^  defcended  upon  Am,  and  a  voice  from  heavenj 
^*  faying^  this  is  my  beloved  Scn»  There  is  a 
"  plain  Gorrefpondence  between  the  two 
"  paffages.  Ifaiah  fays,  the  Spirit  of  God 
•'  was  upon  him,  becaufe  he  was  anointed  to 
**  preach.  Matihew  fays,  the  Spirit  of  God 
"  was  upon  him,  after  he  v/as  baptized^  when 
'•  he  was  proclaimed  to  be  God's  Son.  His 
**  baptifm  was  plainly  the  anointing  foretold. 
*'  and  was  probably  perform,ed  in  the  fame 
"  manner  that  un8.ion  was.  This  account  of 
•'  Ch nil's  baptifm  is  agieeable  to  the  word.-- 
"  of  St.  Peter,  A8s  x.  36,  37,  38.  The  zuon 
"  which  God  fent  to  the  children  of  I/rael^  preach- 
^'  ^^ng  peace  by  j<  fus  Chrifl ;  that  word  ye  know^ 


I^NF ANT'  BAPTISM.-  2:l->i  i 

^*  which  began  from  Galilee^  after  the    laptijm  ■ 
"  which     John  prr ached' ;    how    God    anointed 
"  J^fi^^  Chrijl  of  Nazareth^  with  the  Holy  Ghoj% 
"  and  with  power.'" 

Although  Chrifl:  was  not  a  Levite  by  birth, 
bat  born  of  the  royal  tribe  of  Judah,  and  a* 
prieft  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  his 
baptifmal  confecration  was  indifpenfabiy  nec- 
efTary.  The  Apoftle,  to  the  Hebrews,  in  the 
5^h  chapter,  4th  verfe,  obferve.s  with  particr 
ular  reference  to  Chrift,  '•  No  man  taketh  this 
"  honour  to  himfelf  but  he  that  is  called  of  God^ 
"  as  was  Aaron,''  As  Aaron  lived  under  the 
law  of  Mofes,  fo  did  Chrift.  This  law  did 
not  allow  the  Levites  to  undertake  the  facer- 
dotal  office,  till  they  had  arrived  at  the  age 
of  twenty-five  years  ar.d  upward.  Chrift, 
thereforc,VY'aited  until  he  was  about  thirty  years 
old.  The  law  of  Mofes  exprefsly  required, 
that  the  Levites  fhould  be  publickly  inaugu- 
rated and  confecrated  to  the  fervices  of  the 
fanftuary,  by  a  folemn  rite  of  purification. 
Accordingly,  Mofes,  as  he  was  commanded, 
took  Aaron  and  his  fons  and  wafhed,  or  bap- 
tized them,  before  the  afTembled  nation.  In 
conformity  to  this  Leviticai  law,  our  Saviour 
was  baptized  by  John,  in  the  prefence  of 
many  witneffes.  John,  at  firft,  hefnated. 
Chrift  explained  the  command,  faying,  "  thus 
^  //  bccometh  us  to  fidjii  all  righteoujnefs  ;  and 
"  then  he  fuffered  hinu'  Chrift  had  reference 
to  ail  the  inftituted  rites,  and  religious  cere- 
monies of   the   Mofaic  law.     *'•  Thus  it  be- 


3^12  AN    APOLOGY   FOB: 

5«  comcih  us  to  fulfil  all  ligbleoufnefs."  He 
fpeaks  in  the  plural  number,  including  John 
with  himfelf.  They  both  lived  under  the 
fame  law.  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven — the  gofpel 
inftitution,  ?:t."^5  at  hand ;  but  it  had  not  com- 
inenced.  Chrifl  was  therefore  baptized,  in 
obedience  to  a  religious  rite  of  the  Mofaic 
difpenfation,  which  was  not  yet  abrogated, 
but  dill  in  full  force.  When  an  infant, 
he  was  circumciled  ;  and  being  the  firft-born, 
he  was  dedicated  to  God  in  his  temple. 
When  twelve  years  old,  he  obfervcd  the 
paflbver.  This  v/as  probably  the  firft  time  ; 
and  he  would  not  negle6i  the  lait  opportuni- 
ty, although  it  happened  on  the  very  nigh^, 
in  which  he  was  berrayed  to  death.  Thus 
uniformly  and  ftridly,  he  obferved  every 
ritual^  as  v/ell  as  moral  precepr,  of  Gcd^s 
law. 

The  various  purifications,  which  Mofes 
performed  and  required,  w^e  have  fhown,  are 
exprefslv  called  haptipm^  by  the  Apodle,  in 
the  original.  When  Mofes  baptized  Aaron 
and  his  fons,  he  faid,  in  the  prefcnce  of  the 
whole  congregation,  "  Thh  is  the  things  xvhich 
"  the  Lord  hath  commanded  to  he  done,'"  It  is 
likely,  that  John  ufed  the  fame  prefcript  form 
of  folemn  words,  when  he  baptized  Cbrift, 
The  baptifm  of  Aaron  and  his  (ons  was  inau- 
gural. So  was  the  baptifm  of  Ghrift.  It  was 
his  confecration  and  indu61ion  to  publick  of- 
fice. He  was,  hereby,  \Q2,^\\y  called  of  God — 
anointed  and  auihorizedj  as  was  Aarouj  to  un- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  2  I3 

dertake  his  ofEcial  miniftrations.  And  now. 
Sir,  if  you  will  take  your  bible  in  hand,  and 
turn  to  the  8th  chapter  of  the  book  of  Num- 
bers, you  will  there  find  in  what  modcy  or  man- 
ner, this  baptifm  was  adminif^ered.  The  chap- 
ter, in  general,  relates  to  the  confecra:ion  of 
ihe  Levites;  but  the  5th,  6ih,  and  ^ih 
verfes  have  an  explicit  and  particular 
reference  to  the  mode^  in  which  Mofes  was 
exprefsly  commanded  to  apply  and  ufe  the 
confec rating  water.  "  And  the  Lord  fpake 
"  unto  Mofes,  faying^  take  the  Levites  from  a* 
•*  mong  ihe  children  of  Ijrael,  and  ckanfe  them  ; 
''  and  thusjhalt  thou  do  unto  them^io  ckanfe  them; 
"  fprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon- them'' — Sprin^ 
kle  water  of  purifying  upon  them.  Szc,  It  is 
true,  ihat  the  Levites  were  ordered  to  wajh; 
their  clothes  and  make  themfclves  cl'an  ;  and  on 
all  fucceeding  occafions,  before  they  enter- 
ed the  tabernacle  or  inner  court  of  God's 
houfe,  they  were  exprefsly  required  to  xva/ti 
their  hands  and  feet  at  the  laver.  But  that 
wafhing,  or  purification,  or  cleanfing,  or  hap- 
tifn,  which  was  the  f acred  rite  of  confer  ati  on  ^. 
and  which  Mofes  adminiftered  vjith  his  oun 
hand,  was  performed  fv  fprinkling  the  water  of 
purifying  upon  them.  This  argument,  in  con- 
nexion wiih  others,  I  think,  fufficienily 
proves,  that  Jefus  Chrift  was  baptized  by  af- 
fufion  or  fprinkling.  The  law  did  not  require 
dipping.  It  exprefsly  required  fprinkling, 
^^  Chrifi  did  not  come  to  defroy  the  law  and  the 
^^  prophets,  but  to  fidfl  them  in  every  iota  and. 


214  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

'•  tittle,'"  He  was  baptized  with  water,  and 
at  the  fame  time  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  The 
Spirit  of  God  defcended  viGbly,  and  lighted 
upon  him^  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  ratified, 
wiih  an  audible  voice,  that  folemn  tranfaftioHo 
I  am.  Sir,  <&:c. 


LETTER     XXr, 

SIR, 

X  HAVE  juft  hinted  that  the  baptifm  of 
John  was  a  reh'gioas  rite  under  the  Mofaic 
difpenfation.  This  difpenraiion  lafted  until 
the  death  of  Chrift.  Our  Lord  having  arifen 
from  the  dead,  inftiiuted  the  chriftian  bap- 
tifm. He  comnriiiTioned  and  commanded  the 
Apoftles.  to  difciple^  and  baptize  all  nations^  in 
the  najne  of  the  Father. ^  and  of  the-  Son,  and  of  ike 
Holy  Ghnfi.  The  fubje6ts  of  baptifm  are 
here  expreffed  in  the  moft  general  and  com- 
prehenfive  terms,  which  evidently  include 
perfons  ofall  ages  and  of  both  fexes.  We 
have  endeavoured  to  (how  that  the  word 
baptize  fignifles  to  wet  or  wafli.  fac  ram  en  tal- 
ly, without  being  reftri8ed  in  its  meaning,  to 
any  particular  mode  of  applying  or  ufing  the 
water.  But  you  fay,  that  there  can  be  no 
true  and  valid  bapiifm,  without  a  total  dip. 
ping  or  immerfion  ; — that  all  oiher  modes^ 
of  baptizing  area  mere  nullitVj  although  adr 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  £1K 

miniftered  by  difuitahle  perfon,  and  to  a  proper 
fubje6t5  and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
Sentiments  of  fuch  nature  and  tendency  need 
the  cleared  and  moft  unqueftionable  proof. 
We  have,  in  vain,  fearched  for  this  proof  in 
the  baptifin  of  John.  Let  us  now  examine 
the  feveral  inftances  recorded  in  the  new 
teftament,  fince  the  inflitution  of  the  chriRian 
baptifm  ;  and  fee  if  we  can  find  any  certain 
and  indubitable  evidence,  that  the  Apoftles 
did  always  dip,  or  immerfe  totally  under 
\vater,  thofe  perfons  whom  they  baptized. 

The  firft  inftance  of  baptifm,  that  occurs, 
happened  at  the  feaft  of  Pentecoft,  ten  days 
after  the  afcenfion  of  Jefus  Chrift,  On  this 
occafion,  the  Apoftles  preached  their  firft  fer- 
mons;  and  on  the  fame  day  adminiftered 
baotifm  to  three  thoufand  perfons.  Some 
fuppofe  they  were  dipped.  Oihers  believe 
they  were  probably  baptized  by  afFufion  or 
fprinkling.  The  infpired  writers  have  not 
told  us  in  what  mode  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm was  adminiftered.  We  have  nothing  to 
<iire6l  and  affift  us  in  forming  our  opinionj 
but  the  circumftances  of  the  cafe.  It  is  not 
in  my  power,  to  difcover  a  fingle  incident, 
which,  in  the  leaft  degree,  indicates  that  they 
were  dipped.  The  Apoftles  were  not  field- 
preachers.  They  did  not,  like  John,  encamp 
and  preach  on  the  bank  of  a  river;  but  in 
jerufalem,  twenty  miles  from  Jordan  and 
Enon.  It  is  not  faid  that  the  people  went  to 
any  ftream  of  water  j  or  to  any  natural  or 


2l6  AN   APOLOGY   FOR 

artificial  fountain  of  water,  in  order  to  be 
baptized.  Indeed,  it  is  not  intimated  that 
they  left  the  city,  or  even  the  houfe,  Where 
the  Apoftles  had  been  preaching.  There  is, 
certainly,  no  evidence  or  intimation,  of  any 
kind,  that  they  were  dipped.  The  fuppofi- 
tion,  therefore,  appears  to  us  very  improba- 
ble. The  improbability  is  greatly  increafed, 
when  we  coiifider  the  fliortnefs  of  the  time, 
and  want  of  conveniences.  It  was  a  fur- 
prizing  emergency;  and  wholly  unexpefted, 
by  the  preachers  and  by  the  hearers.  No 
previous  arrangements  ar  preparations  had 
been  made  by  them,  for  the  change  of  drefs. 
No  bathing  places  had  been  befpoken  or 
provided.  Jerufalem  was  an  inland  city,  at  a 
diflancefrom  the  fea  fide,  and  from  any  river  ^ 
and  its  inhabitants  were  generally  hoftile  to 
the  caufe  of  chriftianity.  Where  then,  could 
three  thoufand  perfons,  principally  foreign- 
ers, from  fifteen  different  nations,  on  a  fud- 
den,  procure  the  conveniences  neceffary  for 
immerfion  ?  Dr.  Gill  attempts  to  furmount 
thefe  difficulties,  by  fuppofing  that  baths, 
and  that  the  ten  lavers  and  molten  fea  of  the 
temple,  were  probably  obtained,  and  ufed  aS 
dipping  places,  on  this  occafion,  by  the 
Apoftles.  But  he  feems  to  have  forgotten^ 
that  thofe  public  cifterns  were  in  the  pofl'ef- 
fion  of  the  Jewifh  rulers  and  priefts,  the  moft 
inveterate  enemies  of  Chrill  and  of  his  re- 
ligion— that  they  were  made  and  referved, 
in  order  to  contain  clean  water  for  various 


INFANT    BA^ISM.  21/ 

•Ufes ;  and  in  particular,  for  the  purpofe  of 
wafhing  their  facrifices,  and  alfo  the  hands 
and  feet  of  the  Levites,  &c.  Accordingly, 
Dr.  Willet,  and  Dr.  Lightfoot,  and  other 
learned  writers  upon  this  fubje6l5  have  in- 
formed us,  that  thofe  capacious  refervoirs 
were  provided  with  fpouts  or  cocks,  by  means 
of  which  the  water  was  drawn  out  for  the 
purpofes  aforefaid.  We  have  no  reafon  to 
think,  that  they  were  ever  intended  or  ufed 
as  dipping  places. 

The  fpace  of  time,  which  the  Apoftles  had, 
for  baptizing  fuch  a  vaft  multitude  of  people, 
appears  to  have  been  very  fhort.     The  Jews 
divided  their  day.  which  confifted  of  twelve 
hours,  into     four    quarters,    affigning   three 
hours  to  each  quarter.     Each  of  thefe  quar- 
ters  derived   its   name    from  that  particular 
hour,   v;hen  it   commenced.       The    fecond 
quarter  began  with  the  third  hour,  and  was 
called  the  third  hour,  and  lafted  till  the  ninth 
hour ;    that   is,    according  to  our  method  of 
computing    time,    from     nine    until    twelve 
o'clock.     This  divifion  of  the  day  into  quar- 
ters was  particularly  obferved  on  their  great 
and    folemn    feftiva's.     The  commencement 
of  each  quarter,  viz.  the  third,  the  fixtb,  and 
the  ninih  hour,  on  thefe  occafions,  was  pro- 
claimed by  the  found  of  a  trumpet.     When 
Peter,  therefore,  faid,  it  is  the  third  hour  of 
the  day,  we   naturally  fappofe  that  he  meant 
xht  fecond  quarter,  which  began  at  nine  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  lafted  till  noon. 
T 


2l8  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

The  difciples  probably  came  together  int® 
one  place,   at   the  beginning  of  this  quarter, 
which  was  at    nine    o'clock — the   very  time 
when  the  Jews  offered  their  morning   facri- 
fice  and   morning    prayer.       A    miraculous 
noife  and   appearance  enfued.     The   report 
of  what  had  happened,    foon    fpread  abroad. 
A  numerous  afiembly  was  coUefted,  compo- 
fed  of  Jews  and  profelytes,  from  almofl  every 
nation.     We  are  not  told,   what  number   of 
the  Apoftles  preached;  but  it  is  particularly 
mentioned,  hov/  every   man    of  that   mixed 
multitude   heard   them   fpeak  in  his  own  na- 
tive language.      After  this,  Peter  delivered 
his  fermon  ;    a  brief  epitome  of  which  is  re- 
corded in  the  fecond  chapter  of  A6h.     The 
facred  hiftorian  does  not  pretend  to  give  the 
whole  difcourfe,  but  exprefsly  tells  us,  "  that 
"  ivith  viany  other  zvords*  he  did  iejlify  and  exhort 
"  them^  &c."      The  auditory  was  aftonifhed  ; 
"  And  they  who  gladly    received  the  word  were 
"  baptized ;  and  the  fame  day,  there  were  added 
''  unto  them  about  three  thciifand  fouls.'"     Now, 
when  we  attend  to  all  theie  circumftances,  it 
evidently   appears,   that   the   day   mud  have 
been  far   fpent,   before   the    Apoftles   could 
proceed   to   the   adminiftraiion    of   baptifm. 
Many  perfors  have  thought,  and  ftill  think, 
there  was  not  fufficient  time   remaining,  for 
the  purpofe  of  baptizing  fo  many   perfons, 
according  to  the  flow  method  of  immerfion. 
We  ought  to  confider,  that  it  was  not  a  pre- 
concerted plan^ — an  experiment,  in  order  to 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  Si  1  ^ 

fee  with  how  great  difpatch  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  might  be  adminiftered.  The  candi- 
dates were  not  examined  on  a  previous  day, 
and  every  thin.iT  prepared  a^d  made  ready 
before  hand.  The  Apoilles  preached — the 
people  alTembled  and  heard  them — they  were 
convinced — they  profeffcd  their  faith  and 
repentance,  and  received  baptifm.  It  is  not 
faid,  nor  intimated,  that  they  went  to  the 
temple,  or  to  any  public  or  private  baths,  in 
order  to  be  baptized.  No  preparations  had 
been  made — no  river  was  near  ;  nor  is  it  Hke- 
ly  there  were  anv  co':veniences  for  dipping; 
and  certainly  thev  had  but  very  little  time; 
and  yet  the  ApoRles  bapiizcd  three  thoufand 
perfons,  on  the  (ame  day,  having  previoufly 
delivered  a  number  of  difcourfes.  There  is 
not  the  leafi  indication,  that  thefe  perfons 
were  dipped  ;  or  that  they  removed  to  any 
particular  place,  for  faid  purpofe.  The  or- 
dinance of  baptifm  was  undoubtedly  admin- 
iftered at  the  very  houfe,  where  they  firft  af- 
fembled  ;  and  probably  by  afFufion  or  fprink- 
ling.  For  this  houfe  was  the  place,  and  af- 
fufion  was  the  mode,  in  which  the  Apojiks- 
had  now  been  publickly  and  vifiblv  baptized, 
by  the  Pudding  forth  and  pouring  out  of  God's- 
Spirit  upon  thnn^  agreeably  to  the  prediBion 
of  ChriO,  of  John,  and  of  other  prophets. 

Secondly^  we  proceed  to  confider  the  bap- 
tifm of  St.  Paul,  and  the  circumftances  which 
attended  it,  as  recorded  in  A61s  ix,  17,  187 
19.     '•  Ananias  went  his  way,  and  entered 


220  AN   AFOLOGY    FOR. 

•'  into  the  houfe ;   and,  putting  his  hands-  on, 
**  him,   faid.  Brother  Saul,   the    Lord,   even 
*'  Jefus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way, 
*'  as  thou  cameft,  hath    fent   me,  that   thou 
**  mighteft  receive   thy   fight,   and   be   filled 
*•  with   the   Holy  Ghoft.      And  immediately 
"  there  fell  from   his   eyes,   as   it   had   been 
"  fcales ;  and   he   received   fight   forthvvith,^, 
^'  and  arofe  and  was  baptized.       And  when 
*'  he  had  received  meat  he  was  ftrengthened." 
It  is  not  faid,   that  they  proceeded   to  any, 
river  or  ftream,  or  fountain   of  water.      In- 
deed,  it  is   not  intimated  that  they  left  the 
houfe,  or  even   the    room   where    Paul  had; 
lodged,   for  the  purpofe   of   baptizing   him. 
Thefe  are  circumftances  of  great  importancej. 
and.Jf  they  had  a61ually  happened,    would, 
undoubtedly  have  been  mentioned. 

On  the  other  fid«,  every  incident  attends 
ing  the  cafe,  indicates  that  he    was  baptized 
by  affufion   or  fprinkling.      Three    days  had 
elapfed  fince  his  arrival  at  Damafcus.     Du- 
ring this  interval  he    was  blind,  and  ate  and 
drank  nothing.     Having  been    baptized,  we 
are  told,  he  received  mcat^  and  was  Jlrengthcned ;  -, 
which    exprefiion    fliows    that   he   had  been 
greatly  weakened.     Now,  is  it  probable,  that 
a  perfon  thus   exhaufted   and  enfeebled    by 
long  fafting,  and   by    extreme    anxiety   and, 
agifation    of  mind,   would   be   in   a  fuitable 
condition  for  going  abroad,  and  for  re.ceiv 
ing  baptifm  by  immerfion  ? 


I'NFANT    BAPTISM,  29fi 

But  it  is  (aid  that  he  arofe,  which  circum- 
ftance,  the  baplifts  fuppofe.  intimates  that  he 
was  dipped — Slender  argument  ! — great  mif- 
take  !  The  facred  hiftorian  informs  us,  that 
Saul  arofe.  He  adds  no  more.  Here  he 
flops;  and  here  let  us  ftop.  It  is  not  inti- 
mated that  he  moved  a  (ingle  flep.  Infiu- 
enced  by  a  fuitable  refpeB  and  veneration 
for  Jefus,  whom  he  had  perfecuted,  and  for 
a  chriftian  inftitution,  and  for  the  holy  x^pof- 
tle,  he  arofe. — Ahhough  weak  and  debiiilated, 
with  great  propriety  of  Gondu8,  he  arofe 
from  his  feat  or  couch,  and  (lood  upon  his 
feet ;  and  in  this  ftanding,  reverential  pofture^ 
received  from  the  hand  of  Ananias,  the  fa- 
crament  of  baptifm.  This,  Sir,  is  the  fcrip- 
lural  account.  Ananias  found  Paul  in  the 
houfe  of  Judas — delivered  his  meilage,  and 
laid  his  hands  on  him — he  received  his  Jig ht  forth- 
with; and  arofe^  and  zvas  baptized. 

Thirdly.  While  Peter  was  preaching  the 
gofpel  at  the  houfe  of  Cornelius,  the  Centu- 
rion, a  Gentile,  we  are  told,  the  Holy  Ghcfi 
fell  on  thnn^  who  heard  him.  The  Apoftie, 
perceiving  what  had  happened,  exclaimed, 
Atis  X.  47.  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that 
"  thefJJiould  not  be  baptized^  who  have  received  ihs 
^'  Holy  Ghofl,  as  well  as  zve  ?''  Peter  does  not 
fay,  can  any  man  forbid  us  the  ufe  of  his 
brook  or  bathing  place  ?  He  does  not  fay, 
can  any  man  forbid  our  going  into,  or  through 
his  field  ?  But  can  any  man  forbid  water  ? 
This  manner  of  expiefTion  is  not  applicable 
Ta 


222.  AN    APOLOGY   FOR- 

to  the  mode  of  dipping,  nor  to  the  common 
praQice  of  leaving  the  houfe,  and  of  goings 
forth  to  a  river  or  pool,  for  the  purpofe  of 
immerfion.  But,  as  Dr.  Ofgood  juftly  ob- 
ferves,  "  He  expreffes  himfelf  in  the  very 
"^  words  which  we  fhould  expe6l  one  of  our 
'^  minifters  would  have  ufed  under  fimilar' 
*'  circumftances;  can  any  man  forbid  water^ 
*'  that  is,  forbid  its  being  brought  into  the 
''  room  ?  Is  not  this  the  raoft  natural  and  ob- 
"  vious  meaning — an  idea  which  the  form 
*'  of  words  and  mode  of  expreflion  inftantly 
'*  and  fully  excite  in  our  minds  ?  According- 
^*  ly,  there  is  no  hint  of  their  going  abroad, 
"  or  of  any  other  preparation,  in  order  to 
^*  their  being  baptized,  but  that  of  bringing 
*"*  a  little  water  irrto  the  room.  The  hiftory 
''  leads  us  to  believe,  that  this  was  performed 
"at  the  very  janBure  when  Peter  propofed 
'^  it,  and  in  the  very  apartment  in  which  they 
'•  were  then  affembled." 

We  well  know,  how  flrongly  the  believing: 
Jews  and  profelytes  were  prejudiced  againft 
the  uncircumcifed  Gentiles.  Peter  there- 
fore appeals  to  their  rea(on  and  confciences 
on  this  occafion,  faying,  "  can  any  man  for- 
^^  bid  water  thai  tbefe  fhould  not  be  baptized, 
''  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghojl  as  zvell  as. 
"  u:e  ?"  Who  among  us  can  any  longer  ob- 
jett  ?  Will  any  one  prohibit  the  providing 
of  water,  or  refufe  to  bring  it  for  the  pur- 
pofe of  baptizing  tbefe  perfons — thefe  Gen- 
tiles, wlio  have  been  baptized  with  the  Holy 


INFANT     BAPTISM. 


Ghoft,  as  well  as  we  ?  He  evidently  alludes 
to  the  very  mode  in  which  they  had  received 
this  fpiritual  baptirm  ;  as  in  the  44th  and  45th 
verfes.  "  While  Peter-yet  fpake  thefe  words, 
'^  the  Holy  Gho^  fell  on  all  them  that  heard: 
"  the  word..  And  they,  of  the  circiimcifion, . 
"  who  believed,  were  aftonifhed.  becaufe  that 
"  on  the  Gentiles  alfo  was  poiu'cd  out  the  gift  of 
*^  the  Holy  Ghofir  This  baptifm,  .by  the  afFu- 
fion  of  God's  Spirit,  filenced  every  objedion. 
As  Peter  and  his  circumcifed  hearers,  had 
been  baptized  by  the  fliedding  and  pouring  out 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  at  the  feaft  of  Pentecofl, 
fo  his  uncircumcifed  gentile  hearers  were 
now  baptized,  by  having  the  faoie  ^^Wn  poured 
out  upon  them.  They  accordingly  had  the  faniie. 
right  to  be  baptized  with  water.  We  are 
told,  the  Holy  Ghoft  fell  on  them  that  heard 
him  ;  and,  if  we  may  be  allowed  to  ufe  the 
language  of  fcripture,  his  influences  y^//  like 
rain.  It  is  highly  probabk,  that  the  Apof- 
tle  applied  the  baptifmal  water  to  thofe  per- 
fons  thus  baptized  v/ith  the  Holy  Spirit,  after 
a  limilar  manner. 

The  facred  fcriptures  commonly  join  bap. 
tifm  with  water,  and  baptifm  with  the  Holy 
Ghoft  together,  as  correfpondent  parts  of 
each  other,  and  expre fs  them  by  the  fame 
word,  and  defcribe  them,  as  to  their  mode,  in 
the  fame  way.  St.  Peter  has  exprefsly  told 
us,  in  what  manner  Cornelius  and  his  friends 
were  baptized  by  the  Holy  Gho  i,  viz.  by 
fhedding,  pouring.  Sec,      Accordingly,  the 


2'2^^  AN    APOLOGY   FOR 

afFufion  or  fprinkling  of  water  upon  tliem,- 
v;as  the  moft  ftriking  reprefentation  of  their 
fpiritual  baptifm,  and  of  courfe  a  very  fuita- 
ble  and  proper  mode  of  baptizing,  andy 
probably,  the  mode  which  he  adopted. 

Fourthly.  The  next  inftance  of  baptizing,^ 
which  we  (hall  here  note,  is  that  of  the  jailer 
and  his  family.  It  is  mentioned  in  ABs  16. 
According  10  the  account  given  us  by  St. 
Luke,  they  v/ere  baptized  at  home— -at  mid- 
night— the  very  y^w^  hour  \n  which  they  be- 
lieved. A  terrible  earthquake  had  happen- 
ed. The  keeper  of  the  prifon  was  greatly 
aflonifhed;  and  being  convinced  and  con- 
verted to  the  chriftian  faith,  by  the  preach-- 
ing  of  Paul  and  Silas,  he  and  all  his  were  bap^ 
iized  Jlraightvjoy.  Now,  how  can  we  fup- 
pofe,  that  they  were  dipped  ;  or  that  they 
left  the  jail  and  went  away  to  fome  conven- 
ient place,  for  that  purpofe  ?  Nothing  of 
this  nature  is  intimated,  and  no  fing-e  circum- 
fiance  appears  to  favour  the  fuppofition*- 
Their  baptifm  was  adm.iniftered  in  the  dead 
of  the  night,  while  the  whole  city  was  un- 
doubtcdly  alarmed,  and  in  the  greateft  per- 
turbation. Befides,  the  Apoftles,  but  a  little 
before  this  event,  had  been  feverely  beaten 
with  rods,  and  fo  abufed,  that  when  leave 
was  granted  ihem,  on  the  enfuingday,  to  de- 
part, they  abfolutely  refufed,  until  the  magis- 
trates  fkouH  come^  themfelves^i  and  fetch  them  out. 
This  clearly  indicates,  that  they  had  not,  pre- 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  22.^ 

vidufly,  in  a  clandeftine  manner,  quiued  the 
prifon  and  returned. 

''You  will  perhaps  fay,  there  was  a  bath^. 
for  the  purpofe  of  dipping  perfons,  within 
the  limits  of  the  jail."  If  an  infpired  writer 
bad  told  us  fo,  I  fliould  certainly  believe 
him;  but  we  have  no  reafon  to  be  unfe^  in 
this  matter,  above  what  is  written.  It  is,  how- 
ever, faid,  that  the  keeper  of  the  prifon  fprang. 
in  trembling,  and  brought-  them  out.  This  \^ 
true.  He  brought  them  out  of  the  flocks — 
the  dungeon — the  inner  prifon,  where  he 
had  confined  them  without  any  particular 
orders.  He  brought  them  into  a  room  of 
more  liberty  and  better  accommodations. 
Here  the  Apoftles  fpake  to  Am,  and  to  all 
his  houfehold.  Here  he  believed^  and  here 
ht  and  all  his  were  baptized,  f^'aighiway.  Afier- 
they  had  received  baptifm,  it  feems  the  jai- 
ler proceeded  a  little  further,  and  brought 
the  Apoflles  into  his  own  houfe,  which  un- 
doubtedly adjoined,  and  was  within  the 
bounds  of  their  cor  finement.  Here  he  fct 
meat  before  them,  Sec.  It  is  not  faid^  nor 
even  hinted,. that  they  were  dipped.  But  ev- 
ery circumftance  feems  to  intimate,  that  they 
were  baptized  by  fprinkling. 

Fifthly.    We  proceed  to  confider  that  well- 
known  ftory  of  Philip  and    the   Eunuch,   on 
which  the  baptifts  put  fo  much  dependence.. 
This  is  the  only  infance  mentioned  in  the   new 
teftament,   after    the    chriftian    baptifm    was 
inftiiuted,  where,  it  is  faid  or  iniimated^  thaj. 


2-25  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

any  perfon  was  baptized  at  a  natural  ftream 
or  fountain  of  water ;  and  when  we  attend  to 
the  peculiar  and  very  uncommon  circum- 
Aances  of  the  cafe,  it  will  not  appear  to  fa- 
vour the  mode  of  dipping,  any  more  than 
that  of  fprinkling.  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
were  riding  in  the  fame  chariot.  V^  hen  they 
had  corae  wiihin  fight  of  water,  the  Eunuch 
obferved;  '*  See  here  is  watey\  what  doth  hin- 
'^  der  me  from  being  haptized?''  Phih'p  told  him, 
that  if  he  belitvtd  with  all  his  heart,  he  might. 
The  Eunuch  replied,  "  /  believe  that  Jefus 
"  Chrifl  is  the  Son  of  God.'''  There  being  no 
objeclion,  he  now  coviynande d  the  chariot  to  f  and 
ftill  Which  expreffions  plainly  (how,  that 
inf^y  had  not  flopped,  nor  arrived  at  the 
water,  (as  Dr.  Gil!  pretends)  when  the  quef- 
tion  was  firft  propofed  by  the  Eanuch.  They 
had  corae  to  the  fight  of  water,  but  not  to 
the  place  where  the  water  was.  According 
to  our  tranflation,  '•  They  bo^h  went  down 
^'  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  ihe  Eu- 
"  nuch,andhe  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
M  verc  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit 
*•  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,"  Sec, 
AEis,  8th  chapter. 

The  baptiPiS  take  it  for  granted,  that  Phil- 
ip dipped  the  Eunuch.  But  the  facred  hif- 
torian  has  not  faid  that  he  dipped  him.  It  is 
remarkable,  that  the  fame  form  t)f  words  is 
ufed  with  refpeft  to  Philip,  as  is'ufed  with 
refpe61  to  the  Eunuch.  ''  They  both  went 
''  down  into  the  water,  and   they  both  came- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  tl'J 

^'  up  out  of  ihe  water."     But   it  is   not  pre- 
tended, that  both  were  dipped.      This  man- 
ner  of   expreffion   does   not   determine  the 
mode  in  which   the   Eunuch  was  baptized. 
They  might,  perhaps,  go  a  little  way  into  the 
water,  in  order  to  obtain  clean  water,  for  the 
purpofe  of  fprinkling.     It  is  not  likely  that 
they  were    provided   with  a  change   of  rai- 
ment, nor  is  it   certain,   that  the   water  was 
fuitable  for  dipping.       There  are,  compara- 
tively, bat  very  few  dreams,  upon  our  roads, 
of  fufficient  and  fuitable  depth,  for  the  pur- 
pofe of  total  immerfion.     The    fuppofidon^ 
however,   that   they   a8:ually   went   into    the 
water,   at  all,  is  wholly  without  proof.     The 
words  here  rendered  into  and   cut  of^    might 
have  been  rendered  to  3.r>d  from.      This  is  a 
truth  beyond  difpute,  and  well  known  to  ev- 
ery one  who  is  acquainted  with    the   Greek. 
The  Greek  prepofiiion  eis^   fignifies   io,    and 
iintOi  as  well  as  i'liio.      We  read  in  John  xx, 
4,  5,  ''That   the   other  difciple  did   out-run 
"  Peter,  and  came  hrft  to  (eis)  the  fepulchre, 
^' yet  went  net  in.''      Every  perfon  perceives^ 
that  the   word   eis^   in   this    place,   is    rightly 
tranflated.      For  if  our  tranflators  had  fubfti- 
tuted  the  prepofition  m/o,  in  the  room  of  ^a, 
it  would  have  occafioned  the  mod  palpable 
abfurdity  and  contradiction.     Although   the 
Greek    prepofition    cz5,    is    moll    commonly 
tranflated  intOi  yet  it  is  very  frequently  ren- 
dered  to   and   unto;    and   no   lefs  than  285 
times,  in  the  five  firft  books  of  the  new  tef- 


^^  AN  APOLObY  rem 

tament,  as  Mr.  Chaplin  informs  us ;  and  even 
in  this  very  chapter^  which  has  reference  to 
the  baptifm  of  the  Eunuch,  it  is  rendered  Y& 
and  unto,Jix  tinties,  and  into  only  once  ;  a  cir- 
cumftance  that  is  very  remarkable.  Again, 
the  Greek  prepoiiiion  ek^  which  is  here  ren- 
dered oiU  o/",  is  moft  commonly  and  properly 
tranflated  ff^om.  It  is  rendered  from  102 
times,  and  out  oj  but  77  rimes,  in  the  five 
firft  books  of  the  new  teftament.  Rivers 
and  ponds  always  lie  in  vallies.  According- 
ly, when  converfing  or  writing  about  them, 
we  naturally  accommodate  our  language  to 
their  fituation.  We  always  defcend  or  go 
dozun^  when  approaching  toward  a  natural 
ftream  or  fountain  of  water  ;  and  always  af- 
cend  or  come  up^  when  we  return  from  them. 
But  nothing  can  be  more  trifling,  than  to  in- 
fer the  mode  of  baptifm  from  the  fignifica- 
tion  of  ihe  words  into  and  out  of  as  here  ren- 
dered by  our  trariOators.  I  do  not  mean, 
Sir,  to  tax  you  with  thus  trifling,  for  the  a- 
forefaid  inference  has  never  been  fo  much  as 
once  hinted  at,  in  your  feven  fermons. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  enquired,  why  the 
Eunuch  did  not  ftop  at  fome  private  houfe 
for  the  purpofe  of  bting  baptized  ?  There 
could  be  no  need  of  this.  Befides,  the  Ea- 
nuch  was  at  a  great  di (lance  from  home— 
among  ftrangers,  who  were  probably,  at  that 
time,  ignorant  of  the  chriftian  religion,  or 
€lfe  its  inveterate  enemies  and  oppo.'ers. 
It  is  not  however  certain,  that  he  paflfed  by 


I^NFANT    BAPTISM.  22^ 

any  houfe,  while  in  company  with  Philip; 
for  the  country,,  between  Jerufalem  and  Ga- 
za, is  exprefsly  called  defcrt.  But  why  did 
not  the  Eunuch  omit  being  baptized  until  he 
had  reached  his  own  houfe  ?  Becaufe  he 
lived  in  a  remote,  heathen  land,  where  there 
was  no  Apoftle  or  perfon  authorized  to  ad- 
minifter  the  facrament  of  baptifm.  Philip 
evidently  conduced  with  the  ftrideft  pro- 
priety. It  does  not  appear  that  he  went  out 
of  his  way  a  (ingle  rod,  in  order  to  obtain 
water  for  the  purpofe  of  baptizing;  but  a8:- 
cd,  in  this  refpeft,  as  all  his  predecefTors  had 
done.  He  baptized  the  Eunuch  upon  the 
road,  by  the  fide  of  his  chariot,  in  which  he 
had  been  journeying  and  preaching ;  and 
thus  any  prudent  minifter  would  do,  in  fimi- 
lar  circumftances,  at  the  preient  day,  even  if 
the  mode  of  adminillering  baptifm  were  that 
of  fprinkling. 

Sixthly  and  lajlly.  We  are  informed,  in 
A6is,  i6th  chapter,  that  Lydia  and  her  houFe- 
hold  were  baptized  in  the  very  place,  where 
Paul  had  been  preaching  ;  which  was  a  pub- 
lick  building,  erefted  near  the  river,  for  the 
purpofe  of  prayer  and  religious  exercifes. 
The  Jews  had  theirj^'^^^^^^t^jand  i\\t\T  profeu- 
dies.  Their  fynagogues  were  commonly  built 
in  cities  and  villages.  ThGir  profeuches  were 
generally  ere6\ed  at  a  little  diRance  from 
oilier  hoafes,  being  intended  for  private  as 
well  as  public  devotion.  We  are  told,  that 
cur  Saviour  continued  all  night  in  prayer  tc  Ged. 
TJ 


230  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

The  original  is,  "  he  continued  all  night  in  a 
''  profeuche  of  God."  We  read,  that  Paul  and 
Timothy  "  went  oat  of  the  city  on  the  fab- 
''  bath  day,  by  a  river's  fide,  xjuhere  prayer  was 
"  wont  to  be  made,''  According  to  the  origin- 
al Greek,  "  they  went  out  of  the  city  to  a 
^^  profeuche  on  (he  river's  fide."  It  was  a 
hoiife  of  player,  ereded  for  the  worfliip  and 
fervice  of  God.  It  was  in  this  building,  that 
Paul  fpake  to  the  women  who  rejorted  thither. 
Here  Lydia  believed;  and  here  JJie  and  her 
hoiifehold  were  baptized. 

We  often  meet  with  ignorant,  prejudiced 
people,  who  are  ready  to  imagine,  that  St. 
Paul  delivered  the  aforefaid  exhortation  in 
the  open  field — on  the  brink  of  the  river,  in 
which  they  fuppofe  perfons  had  been  pre- 
vioufly  and  frequently  dipped;  and,  confe- 
quently,  that  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made  at 
faid  place.  This  is  a  great  miilake.  Philip- 
pi  v^diS  not  a  Jewifh,  but  Grecian  city — the 
capital  of  Macedonia,  and  at  a  great  diftance 
from  Jerufalem.  St.  Paul  was  the  firft  Apof- 
tle  who  ever  preached  in  that  city;  and  the 
inftance,  we  have  mentioned,  was  very  foon 
after  his  firft  arrival,  and  probably  the  firil 
difcourfe  that  he  delivered.  Lydia  was  un- 
doubtedly the  firft  convert,  and  the  very  firft 
perfon,  to  whom  the  chriftian  baptifm  was 
ever  adminiftered  in  that  place. 

Philippi  being  a  place  of  bufinefs,  a  num- 
ber of  Jews  and  profelytes  refided  there,  for 
the  fake  of  trade.     J  aft  without  the  limits  of 


IMFANT    BAPTISM.  23I 

the  city,  near  a  river,  ihey  ere6led  a  pro- 
feuche^  orhoufeof  prayer;  to  which,  it  feems, 
a  number  of  women  reforted  for  religious 
Vv'orfhip.  Here  Paul  and  Timothy  difcourf- 
ed — here  Lydia  heard  them — here  fhe  be- 
lieved— and  here  fhe  and  her  houfehold 
were  baptized.  It  is  not  intimated  that  they 
were  dipped,  or  that  they  went  from  the 
boufe  for  that  purpofe. 

We  read  of  baptifms  in  various  places  and 
OH  different  occafions;  but  there  is  no  ac- 
count that  any  perfon  ever  v;ent  from  the 
place  where  he  had  been  hearing  the  gofpel 
preached,  in  order  to  be  baptized  at  a  foun- 
tain or  river.  }ol  •  lived  many  years  in  the 
wildernefsj  before  he  began  his  publick  mir.if- 
trations.  There  he  preached  ;  and  there  he 
baptized  ;  and  when  the  multitude,  who  at- 
tended on  his  miniftry,  became  vaftly  nu- 
merous, he  removed  the  encampment,  for 
the  fake  of  better  accommodations,  to  Jor* 
dan  and  Enon. 

But  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  who  lived  un- 
der the  fame  difpenfation,  were  preachers  of 
a  different  defcription.  They  did  not  en- 
camp in  the  open  field,  but  travelled  from 
city  to  city,  and  from  houfe  to  houfe. 
Wliere  they  preached,  there  they  baptized* 
Since  the  refurredion  of  Chrift,  and  the 
eftablifhment  of  the  chriftian  baptifm,  we 
have  but  one  inftance  mentioned  in  the  new 
leftament,  ofa  perfon's  being  baptized  at  a 
ftream  or   fountain.     This   we   have  fhown 


232  AN   APOLOGY   FOR 

was  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch — a  very  lingular 
and  extraordinary  cafe ;  and  fo  circum- 
ftanced,  as  to  render  his  baptifm,  upon  the 
road,  expedient  and  proper;  and  more  con- 
venient than  it  would  have  been  in  any  other 
place,  even  if  the  mode  of  baptizing  him; 
were  that  of  fprinkling. 

We  have  examined  every  pafTage  of  fcrip- 
ture,  from  which  any  light  might  be  expedi. 
ed,  relative  to  the  mode  of  baptifm.  Inftead 
of  finding  that  the  Apoftles  always  baptized, 
by  dipping  perfons  wholly  under  water,  as 
the  baptifts  pretend,  there  is  no  certainty 
that  they  ever  dipped  a  fingle  perfon,  on 
any  occafion. 

Some  things  are  clearly  revealed,  and 
others,  for  the  fame  wife  and  benevolent 
purpofe,  are  hidden  from  our  eyes.  "  As 
*'  Mofes  went  up  to  mount  Ncbo^  and  died 
"  there;  and  as  the  Lord  buried  him,  and 
*'  concealed  the  place  of  his  hirial^  {o  that  no 
*'  man,  to  this  day?  ever  knew  where  his  fcpuU 
"  chre  was ;"  thus  the  primitive  mode  of  bap- 
tifm is  withheld  from  our  knowledge.  We 
have  no  certain  evidence,  in  what  manner 
the  Apoilles  did  adminifter  the  facrament  of 
baptifm  ;  or  that  they  were  invariably  con- 
fined to  feme  one  particular  mode  of  bap- 
tizing. It  does,  however,  appear  highly 
probable,  from  the  different  circumftances  in 
which,  baptifm  was  then  adminiftered,  and 
from  the  various  allufions  of  fcripture  to  the 
chrifcian.  b^ptifm>  and  from  the  frequent  ufe 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  233 

and  fignification  of  the  word  baptifm,  that 
they  did  originally  baptize  according  to  the 
prefent  ufuai  modes  of  afFufion  or  fprinkling. 
But  whether  this  was  their  pra6lice  or  not, 
baptifm  is  exprefsly  enjoined,  while  the 
mode  is  neither  required  nor  fpecified.  The 
mode  of  baptifm  is  therefore  a  circimjiance^ 
concerning  which,  we  are  left  at  liberty  to 
choofe  and  a61  according  to  the  di6tates  of 
our  own  underflanding  and  confciences. 

Dr.  Hemmenway  obferves,  "  that  if  any 
<*  fhould  imagine  that  dipping  was  the  mode, 
«<  in  which  the  Apoilles  commonly  adminif- 
"  tered  baptifm,  this  would  not  evince,  that 
"  they  difapproved  of  fprinkling,  any  more 
"  than  the  common  praBice  of  fprinkling 
*•  among  us  proves  that  we  difallow  of  dip- 
*•  ping.  The  Apoftles  might  have  good  rea- 
*'  fons,  in  compliance  wiih  the  cuftom  or  dif- 
"  pofition  of  the  firft  converts,  to  adminifter 
^'  baptifm  in  fuch  a  mode  as  is  neither  necef- 
^'  fary  nor  expedient  for  us." 

Mr.  Clark  fays,  "  if  it  were  certain  (as  it 
^  is  not)  that  dipping  was  the  moft  common 
"  mode  of  baptizing,  in  the  Apoftles'  times, 
*'  yet  it  will  by  no  means  follow,  that  this  is 
"  the  only  lawful  mode.  For  the  inftitution 
"  requiring  baptifm.  has  not  determined  the 
"  mode  of  adminiftration,  but  left  that  as  a 
"  matter  of  indifFerency.  Therefore,  in  Ju- 
*'  dea,  and  other  warmer  countries,  where 
*'  bathings  were  fo  frequent  and  cuftomary, 
^*  perfons  might,  in  conformity  to  their  own 
U2 


434  AN    A.PC10CY   F0!% 

"  inclination,  have  received  baptifrn  by  dip* 
"  ping.  But  then,  what  authority  has  the 
<'  choice  and  practice  of  fome,  in  a  matter  of 
"  liberty,  to  bind  others."  Other  chriftians 
have,,  undoubtedly,  the  fame  right  of  choof- 
inga  different  mode,  that  may  be  more  fuit- 
able  to  their  condition.  In  thefe  refpe6ts, 
the  gofpel  allows  of  greater  liberty  and  lati- 
tude than  former  inftitutions. 

Under  the  old  teftament  difpenfations^ 
their  religious  rites,  with  all  the  formalities 
attending  them,  were  particularly  pointed 
out,  and  exprefsly  enjoined.  Thus  it  was 
with  refpeft  to  the  paflover.  "  The  pafchal 
*'  lamb  mud  be  killed  in  the  firfl:  month  at 
'*  evening — a  male  of  the  firft  ytar,  and  wiih- 
*'  out  blemifh.  He  muft  be  roafted,  and 
"  eaten  the  fame  night,  with  his  head,  legs^ 
"  and  purtenance — with  unleavened  bread 
*^  and  bitter  herbs — in  hafte,  with  their  loins 
"  girded,  with  fhoes  on  their  feeU  and  with 
'-  ftaves  in  their  hands."  But  under  the  gof- 
pel  of  Chrift,  v.^e  have  no  fuch  particular  di- 
redions  and  injunftions  refpeding  the  Lord'^ 
fupper. — We  have  no  command,  concerning 
the  quantity  or  quality  of  the  bread  or  wine, 
or  concerning  the  time,  place,  and  manner 
of  communion.  Accordingly,  the  pra6lice 
of  chriflians  has  been,  and  ftill  is,  very  vari- 
ous. Some  churches  partake  once  or  twice 
in  a  year — others  much  oftener.  Some  par- 
take kneeling  ;  fome  fetting  in  their  refpec- 
tive  fears;  and  others  feated  around  a  table^ 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


235 


provided  and  furnifhed  for  that  purpofe : 
fome  at  noon,  and  others  much  later  in  the 
day.  But  thefe  circumftances,  being  nei- 
ther required  nor  prohibited,  are  therefore 
noteflential  or  important. 

In  former  limes,,  the  ancient  rite   of  cir- 
cumcifion  was   not  only  appointed,  but  the 
mode  of  circumcifing  was  alfo  explicitly   de- 
fined  and  commanded.     The  mode  was  there- 
fore  abfolutely  effential    and   indifputable  ;: 
and  the  praQice  has,  of   courfe,   been  uni- 
form, even  from  the  days  of  Abraham  to  the 
prefent   time.      But,  under  the   gofpel,  the 
mode  of  baptizing  has  not  been  fpecified  or 
commanded.     The  mode  is  therefore  not  ef- 
fential.     The  pra6lice  has  confequently  been 
different ;  varying  according  to  the  variatiou. 
of  times,  and  places,  and  circumftances. 
I  am,  Sir,  Sec, 


>-C>-.>-C>v 


PART       III. 

ON  THE  HISTORY  OF  BAPTISM. 


LETTER     XXIL. 

SIRy 

JLiET  us  now  fpend  a  few  moments  in  ex- 
amining hiftory,  and  fee  if  it  will  not  afford^ 
us  fome  additional  and  ufeful  information^ 
relative  to  the  modes  and  fubje6ls  of  baptifm. 
You  teli  us,  in  fermon  3,  page  40,  "  that 
"  Mofheim,  a  very  noted  church  hiftorian, 
"  and  not  very  friendly  to  the  baptifls,  bears 
"  direB  tefiimony,  that  John.  Ghrifl's  fore- 
^'  runner,  and  the  church,  in  the  firft  ages 
"  of  chriftianity,  praBifed  immerfion  as  the 
**  mode  of  baptizing."  But  how  does  it  ap- 
pear, that  this  celebrated  hiftorian  was  un-- 
friendly  to  the  baptifts  ?  His  hiftory  has  gen- 
erally been  cfteemed  for  irs  impartiality  and 
corre6lnefs.  With  refpe6t  to  the  mode  of 
baptifm.  he  feems  to  favour  immerfion  ;  but 
with  refpeB  to  the  fubjePis,  he  firm.ly  believ- 
ed that  the  right  of  baptifm  belonged  to  the 
infant  children  of  believers,  as  well  as  to  their 
parents  -,    and  that   this  riglft  was  confirmedi 


23S  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

by  apoftolick  example  and  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  the  primiiive  churches.  I  hope  you 
will  give  the  hiftorian  as  much  credit,  with 
regard  to  the  fubjeSls  of  baptifm,  as  you  have 
done  with  refpedi  to  the  mode  of  baptizing. 
But  what  has  he  faid  ?  "  That  John  initiated 
"  perfons  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeem-. 
"  er,  by  immerfion  or  haptijm.'' — By  immer- 
fion  or  haptijm  I  Why  has  he  added  the  word 
haptifm  ?  Undoubtedly  in  order  to  qualify 
the  word  immerfion.  For  he  was  not  w^il- 
ling  to  fubftitute  imriurfion^  a  word  o{  Jixed 
and  dejinite  meaning,  in  the  room  and  place 
of  baptifm,  t:fAzc/2,  according  to  common  u- 
fage,  is  not  refcricied  to  one  and  the  fame  figni- 
fication.  It  was  probably  his  opinion,  that 
the  primitive  chriftians  coimnonly  baptized  by 
immerfion;  but  he  does  not  intimate,  that 
this  was  their  pra6tice  wiiverfally.  or  that  this 
mode  of  baptizing  was  deemed  ejfential  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm. 

Again,  you  tell  us,  "  that  John  Calvin,  in 
*'  his  inflitution.s  book  4,  chapter  15.  feBion 
"  ig,  fays,  it  is  certain  that  the  manner  of 
'•  dipping  was  ufed  of  the  old  church."  You 
proceed — "  Calvin,  the  celebrated  Reform- 
"  t:r,  of  Geneva,  obferves,  in  his  expofition 
''  of  A8s  viii,  38,  '•  We  fee  here  what  was 
"  the  baptiimal  rite  among  the  ancients,  for 
"  they  plunged  the  whole  body  in  water. 
"  Now  it  is  the  cuftom  for  the  minifter  ta 
"  fprinkle  only  the  body  or  hea'd."      ''  And 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  239 

^*  he  too  excufes  this  fprinkling,   but  how,  I 
"  cannot  tell,  not  having  his  book  at  hand." 
Yourconclufions  generally  comprife  much 
more   than  their  premifes.      "  Calvin,"  you 
tell  us,  fays,  «•  it  is  certain  that  the  manner 
"  of  dipping  was  ufed  by  the  old  church." 
He   alfo   declares,  "  that  now  it  is   the   cuf- 
"  torn  for  the  minifter  to  fprinkle  water  on 
*•  the  head."     Thefe  different  expreffions  of 
Calvin  ferve  well   to   illuftrate   and   explain 
each    other.     For  as  dipping  was  fometimes 
praQifed  in  the    days    of   Calvin,    although 
it  was  then  cuftomary  for  minifters  to  bap- 
tize by   fprinkling;  fo  fprinkling  was  fome- 
times  pra6iifed  in   the   ancient   church,    al- 
though  it    was    then    ufual    to   baptize    by 
dipping.      This    is    a   true    ftate     of*    fa6ls5 
and    thus  Calvin    undoubtedly   expe6led   to 
have  been  underftood.     It  is  impoffible  for 
us  to  afcertain,  in  what  mode  or  modes  the  A- 
poftles  and  the  firft  preachers  of  the   gofpel 
adminiftered    bapiifm.       We    do    however 
know,  that  dipping  and  fprinkling  were  both 
praftifed   in    the  fecond  century ;   and  each 
practice  hath  been  continued,  from  that  pe- 
riod to  the  prefent  time.      Sometimes,  and  in 
feme  places,    dipping   has   been    prevalent ; 
and  fometimes,  and  in  {ome  countries,  fprink- 
ling has  prevailed.       But   in   ancient    times, 
the  mode   of  dipping  was  not  confidered  as 
eflential,  nor  was  it  confined  to  adult  believ- 
ers.    The  perfons  baptized  in  this  way   were 
principally  infant  children. 


^40  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

Calvin  was  an  advocate  for  the  mode  of 
fprinkling.  But  as  you  have  not  favoured 
us  with  any  of  his  reafons,  I  will  here  fub- 
join  a  few  lines,  which  immediately  follow 
your  quotation.  After  having  added,  "  that 
"  the  common  cuftom  is  now  for  the  minifter 
"  to  ufe  afpcrfion,"  he  obferves,  "  Never- 
«  thele fs,  fo  fmall  a  difference  of  ceremony 
<*  ought  not  to  be  of  fo  great  account  with 
^  us,  that  we  fhould,  for  that  caufe,  rend  the 
*'  church,  or  difturb  it,  with  our  contentions 
'«  and  controverfics."  And  further,  he  fays, 
"  that  nothing  of  the  fubftance  of  baptifm  is 
"  wanting,  while  the  fymbol  of  water  is  made 
"  ufe  of,  for  the  ends  which  Chrift  hath  ap- 
'^  pointed.  The  fubftance  being  retained, 
^'  the  church  from  the  beginning  enjoyed  a 
'•  liberty  of  ufing  fomewhat  different  rites. 
"  And  therefore,  we  ought  not  to  be  unrea- 
*'  fonably  (tiiF,  in  things  unneceffary  or  un- 
^*  commanded." 

In  the  next  place,  you  produce  Dr.  Cave^ 
and  tell  us,  your  author  lays,  this  great  fearch- 
er  into  antiquity  faid,  "  that  the  party  bap- 
*'  tized,  was  wholly  immerfed,  or  put  under 
*'  water,  which  was  the  cofnmon,  C07iflant,^  and 
''  imiverfal  cuftom  of  thofe  times,  &:c."  This 
mutilated  quotation,  according  to  your  own 
account,  was  taken  from  a  quotation,  printed 
almoft  a  hundred  years  ago,  in  a  publication 
of  ten  letters,  addrefted  to  Bifhop  Hoadly. 
You  have  not  told  us  the  author's  name. 
He  was  probably  one  of  thole   writers,  who 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  241 

preferred  a  fi6litious  fignature.  To  the  quo- 
tations or  this  anonymous,  antiquated  book, 
which  has  been  anFwered  and  confuted  again 
and  again,  you  have  applied  for  witnelTesj  in 
order  to  prove  a  dodririe  which  they  never 
believed.  Dr.  Cave  is  mentioned  as  faying, 
"  that  immerfion  was  the  common,  conftant, 
"  and  univerfal  cuftom  of  thofe  ancient 
*«  times."  In  anfwer  to  this  very  quotation, 
Mr.  Walker^  who  publiftied  his  treatife  on  the 
do6lrine  of  baptifms,  more  than  eighty  years 
lince,  has  favoured  us  with  the  following  re- 
marks :  "  Dr.  Cave  was  no  baptift — nor  op- 
^«  pofed  to  the  mode  of  fprinkling  as  bap- 
"  lifm.  He  doth  not  fay  that  immerging  was 
**  the  conjlant^  and  imiverfal  cuftom  of  thofe 
"  times,  but  expreffes  himfelf  with  a  reftnc- 
"  tion  almojl^  which  is  a  clear  acknowledg- 
"  ment  that  there  were  other  modes  of  bap- 
"  tizing  then  in  ufe." 

The  teftimony  of  your  witneffes,  when  im- 
partially confidered.  is  decidedly  againft  you. 
They  have  told  us,  that  immerfion  was  an- 
ciently praclifed  ;  but  not  one  of  ihem^  has 
faid  or  meant,  that  the  pradice  was  univer- 
fal. You  further  tell  us,  "that  all  the  church- 
*'  es  in  Europe,  Afia,  and  Africa,  ever  have 
'^  done,  and  do  now,  praQife  immerfion,  fave 
"  thofe  who  are  now  or  have  been  under 
"  the  jurifdiclion  of  the  Pontic's  of  Rome.''  I 
wifh  you  had  added  a  f^ew  words  mor^,  and 
told  the  public k,  ihac  thefe  churches  alv/ays 
have  and  (lill  do  vvdiEii^c  in/ant  baptiCm,  This 
W 


242  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

information  would  have  been  very  accepta- 
ble to  many  of  your  readers.  For  while 
fome  ignorantly  fuppofe,  that  the  mode  of 
dipping  has  always  been  confined  to  the  a- 
dults,  others,  like  yourfelf,  inconfiderately 
and  very  abufively,  afcribe  the  praftice  of  in- 
fant baptifm  *'  to  the  mother  of  harlots  and 
"  S^^^Py  ^¥^^  of  Rome:' 

Having  felefted  your  favourite  extrads 
from  the  afore faid Ten  Letters,  "you  tell  us, 
^'  that  Dr.  Laihrop  implicitly  confefles  them 
'•  to  be  both  true  and  genuine."  Let  the 
Dr.  fpeak  for  himfelf.  His  words  are,  ^^  The 
"  truth  is — the  manner  of  baptizing  among 
"  the  ancients  was  looked  upon  circumftan- 
••  cial,  and  no  way  effential  to  the  ordinance. 
"  In  the  times  near  to  the  Apoftles,  immer- 
•♦  fion  was  much  pra^ifed,  but  never  afferted 
••  to  be  neceffary.  Far  from  this ;  fprinkling 
*'  was  exprefsly  allowed,  and  frequently  ufed, 
"  efpecially  in  cafes  of  infirmity,  or  hafte,  or 
*•  want  of  water,  or  other  conveniences. 
'•  This,  the  author  of  the  letters  hirifef  concedes^ 
'•  'that  from  the  Apoftles'  times,  for  thirteen 
'•  hundred  years,  i'prinkiing  was  permitted 
"  on  extraordinary  occafions.'  Cyprian, 
'•  (who  wrote  within  about  150  years  of  the 
'•  Apoftles)  fpeaking  of  fprinkling,  fays,  '  In 
«•  the  facrament  of  falvaiion,  (meaning  bap- 
'•  tifm)  when  neceflity  compels,  the  ftiorteft 
"  ways  of  tranfaBing  divine  matters  do.  by 
"  God's  grace,  confer  the  whole  benefit.' 
'•  And  it  may  not  be  impertinent  to  obferve, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  243 

«  thai  the  ancients  who  pra^Vifed  immerfion 
"  did  ufually,  after  the  body  had  been 
"  plunged,  apply  water  to  the  face.  So  far 
*•  therefore  as  the  pra6lice  of  the  ancients  is 
"ofweighr,  it  proves  all  that  we  contend 
'•  for.  We  don't  fay  that  imnaerfion  is  un- 
'«  lawful,  or  a  mere  nullity.  We  fay  it  is 
*•  not  neceflary — that  afFufion  is  fufficienf, 
'^  and  agreeable  to  the  divine  word  ;  and  fo 
'•  faid  the  ancient  church." 

According  to  Dr.  Lathrop.  your  celebrated 
author  was  To  candid  as  to  acknowledge  that 
fprinkling,  on  extraordinary  occafions,  was 
permitted, even  from  ihe  days  of  theApoftles. 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm, 
mentions  feveral  cafes,  wherein  perfons  had 
been  baptized  by  affufion  or  fprinkling, 
which  happened  about  the  middle  of  the  fec- 
ond  century  ;  as  in  vol.  2,  page  356.  "  St, 
"  Lawrence^  a  little  while  before  he  fufFered 
*'  martyrdom,,  baptized  wiih  a  pitcher  of 
*«  water  one  of  his  executioners,  a  foldier, 
<•  who  had  been  converted  to  the  chriftian 
"  religion."  This  inftance  appears  very  {im- 
ilar  to  the  cafe  of  St.  Paul,  who  baptized  the 
jailer  and.  his  houfehold  in  prifon  the  fame 
hour  of  the  night  in  which  he  believed,  ''  Ba- 
^^Jilides  \s  2i\[o  mentioned  by  Eiifebiiis,  as  hav- 
''  ing  been  baptized  in  prifon." 

Page  353.  ''  Novatian  became  a  chriftian 
<<  about  one  hundred  years  after  the  Apof- 
"  lies,  when,  being  vifited  with  ficknefs,  he 
"  requefied  to  be  baptized  ;  and,  according 


24^  AN    APOLOGY    FOR; 

'•  to  the  cuftom  of  thofe  times,  baptifm  was 
"  adminiftered  to  him  in  his  bed,  by  afFufion 
"  or  fprinkling."  The  circumftances,  which 
attended  this  particalar  cafe,  were  fuch  as 
have  rendered  it  very  notorious,  and  have 
left  no  doubt  with  refpeB  to  the  mode  in 
which  he  was  baptized.  For  Novatian^  hav- 
ing recovered  his  health,  was  afterward  ap- 
pointed bifhop  of  Rome.  His  appointment 
fo  this  office  occafioned  a  very  ferious  con- 
troverfy  ;  an  account  of  which  has  been  pre- 
ferved  even  to  the  prefent  day.  The  law- 
fulnefs  and  validity  of  his  baptifm  were  not 
denied  or  difputed.  But  we  are  informed, 
''  that  all  the  clergy,  and  a  great  many  of 
^'  the  laity,  were  againft  his  being  ordained 
^'  prefbyter,  becaufe  it  was  not  lawful  (they 
'*  feidj  for  any  one  who  had  been  baptized 
'•  in  his  bed,  in  time  of  ficknefs,  to  be  ad- 
••  mitted  to  any  clerical  office."  Now  the 
reafon  of  their  objeftion  is  very  obvious. 
Baptifm,  in  that  age  of  the  world,  expofed 
perfons  to  the  mod  dreadful  perfecutionsj 
efpecialiy  if  they  undertook  the  work  of  the 
gofpel  miniftry.  If  therefore  any  perfon  neg- 
leded  to  be  baptized,  while  in  health,  or  un- 
til vifited  with  ficknefs,  this  negle6l  of  duty 
rendered  his  chara6ler  liable  to  fufpicion. 
They  were  ready  to  fufpeft,  that,  while  well, 
he  was  influenced  by  the  fear  of  reproach 
and  fuffisring;  and  when  fick,  that  he  atted 
under  the  impreffion  of  a  fright ;  and,  con- 
fequentiy,  that  there  would  be  danger  of  hia 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  J^45 

apoftacy,   iF  placed  in   a  Htuation  of  fevere 
trial  and  temptation. 

Accordingly,  the  council  of  Neocasfarea^ 
held  about  eighty  years  after  this  time,  ef- 
tablifhed  the  follovi^ing  regulation,  viz*  "that 
*'  he  who  is  baptized  when  fick  ought  not 
*'  to  be  made  a  priefl  (for  his  coming  to  the 
"  faiih  is  not  voluntary,  but  from  neceffityj 
*' unlefs  his  diligence  and  fidelity  do  after- 
"  ward  prove  commendable,  or  the  fcarcity 
'•  of  men   fit  for  the  office  do  require  it." 

About  this  lime  one  Magnus  wrote  to  Sf, 
Cyprian,  de firing  to  be  fatisfied  in  fome  mat- 
ters relating  to  the  aforefaid  drfpufe.  To  his 
requeft  St.  Cyprian  replied.  *•  I  would  life 
"  fo  much  modefty  and  humility,  as  not  to 
"  prefcribe  fo  pofitively,  but  that  every  one 
**  fhould  have  the  freedom  of  his  oun 
<'  thoughts,  and  do  as  he  thinks  beR."— *^  For 
"  the  contagion  of  fin  is  not,  in  the  facra- 
**  ment  of  falvation,  wafhed  off,  by  the  fame 
*•  meafurcs  as  the  dirt  of  the  fkin  and  of  the 
'•  body  is  waflied  away."- — **  There  is  no  nc- 
"  cefllity  of  foap,  or  of  a  large  pool,  or  fifh- 
"  pond.  It  \s  in  another  way,  that  the  breail 
''  of  a  believer  is  wadied  ;  after  another  fafli- 
'•  ion,  that  ihe  mind  of  man  is  by  faiih  clean- 
"  fed."  And  then  adds  the  quotaiion  that 
you  have  taken  from  Dr.  Lathrop,  viz.  "  In 
'•  the  facraments  of  falvation,  when  neceffity 
^*  compels  the  fiiortert  ways  of  tranfaQing 
"  the  divine  matiers  do,  by  God's  gracious 
^'  dirpenfatioD,  confer  the   whole  benefi:,' — 


^^S  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

He  further  proceeds — "  No  man  need  there- 
"  fore  think  otherwife,becaufe  thefe  fickpeo- 
"  pie,  when  they  receive  the  grace  of  our 
"  Lord,  have  nothing  but  an  affufion  or 
"  fprinkling;  whereas  the  holy  fcripture,  by 
*'  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  fays,  I  will  fpr  inkle  dean 
"  water  uponyou^i  andyejhall  he  clean"  Sec, 

Dr.  Wall  dates  "  the  aforefaid  inftances 
'•  as  fome  of  the  moft  ancient  now  extant  on 
"  record;  but  obferves,  as  we  proceed  fur- 
''  ther  in  reading  the  hiftory  of  the  following 
"  times,  cafes  of  fprinkling  are  more  fre- 
"  quently  mentioned;  and  that,  in  the  fifth 
"  century,  baptifm  was  adminiftercd  in 
"  France,  indifferently,  by  immerfion  and 
"  afperfion." 

The  truth  is — previoufly  to  the  third  cen- 
tury^  or  before  Conftantine  the  Emperour^. 
embraced  chriftianity,  chriftians  were  con- 
ftantiy  oppofed  and  perfecuted  by  the  rulers 
and  philofophers  of  this  world.  This  gene- 
ral oppofiiion  and  perfecution  prevented  in* 
ternal  differences,  and  difpofed  them  to  u* 
nite  harmonioufly  againft  the  common  ene^ 
my,  and  in  defence  of  their  common  religion. 
They  have  accordingly  written  and  tranfmit- 
led  to  pofteriiy  but  very  little,  concerning 
gofpel  ordinances  ;  and,  in  particular,  con- 
cerning the  facrament  of  baptifm  ;  and  have 
commonly  expreffed  them  (elves  in  fuch  a 
manner  as  does  not  fpecify  the  modcj  in 
which  it  wac>  adminiiiered. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  247 

When  we  confider  the  peculiar  circum- 
ftances  of  thofe  limes ;  that  the  art  of  print- 
ing was  not  then  known  ;  that  but  very  few 
perfons  were  capable  of  writing ;  that  a 
dreadful  ftorm  of  perfecution  raged  without 
control;  that  chriftians  were  every  moment 
liable  to  be  deprived  of  their  property,  their 
liberty,  their  relations  and  friends,  and  even 
of  their  own  life — it  could  not  be  expe6led, 
in  this  (ituation  of  extreme  danger,  anxiety, 
and  diftrefs,  that  they  would  be  able  to  pre= 
ferve  a  regifter  of  their  proceedings — an  ex- 
a6t  account  of  their  numerous  baptifms,  and 
of  the  mode  in  which  they  baptized  ;  and  yet 
we  find  various  inftances  of  baptifm  admin- 
iftered  by  fprinkling,  fo  early  as  in  the  fec» 
ond  century.  This  is  a  faB  clearly  afcer- 
tained,  and  univerfally  acknowledged.  It  is 
allowed  even  by  the  baptifts.  The  author 
of  Ten  Letters,  whom  you  have  fo  often  quo- 
ted  as  an  authority,  concedes,  "  that  fprink- 
"  ling  was  pra^ifed,  on  extraordinary  occa- 
"  fions,  in  the  early  ages  of  chriftianity."  It 
was  praftifcd,  occafionally,  with  general  con- 
fent,  with  univcrfal  approbation.  It  does 
not  appear  that  there  was  one  fingle  church 
in  all  chriltendom,  for  more  {han  a  ihoufand 
years,  that  objefted,  or  even  fufpefted,  that 
fprinkliDg  was  not  a  lawful  and  valid  mode 
of  baptizing. 

You  fell  us,  "  the  reafons  alledged,  why 
'•  fpririkling  may  be  fubfliiuied  for  immer- 
«  lionjarcj  the  want  of  health,  coldnefs  of 


248  an:   apology   FOR 

«  climate,  Sec,  and  that  here  isi»a  filent  ac- 
"  knowledgment,  that  it  is  not  the  inftirution, 
"  the  permiflion  of  Chrift,  but  mere  acciden- 
"  tal  and  local  circumftances,  which  make  it 
*'  lawful  to  lay  by  the  command  of  Chrifi, 
"  and  receive  in  its  ftead  the  precepts  and 
"  commandments  of  men." 

Is  this  a  fair  and  candid  reprefentation  of 
the  cafe  ?  Who.  among  the  ancients  or  mod- 
erns, that  have  pra8ifed  fprinkling,  general- 
ly or  occafionaliy,  ever  fuppofed  that  Chrif^ 
commanded  dipping  ?  It  has  certainly  been 
their  conftant  opinion,  that  the  mode  of  bap- 
tizing  was  not  fpecified  or  required  byChrift ; 
that  afperfion,  afFufion,  and  immerfion,  were 
equally  valid. 

We  are  fometimes  told,  «*  that  the  priml- 
"  tive  chriftians  were  all  baptifts."  But  it 
feems  they  did  not  fuppofe  that  the  mode  of 
fprinkling  was  a  mere  mockery  or  nullity  ; 
or  that  a  total  dipping  or  immerfion  was  ab- 
folutely  edential  to  the  facrament  of  baptifm. 
None  of  the  ancient  fathers,  many  of  whom 
were  learned  men,  and  underflood  the  origi- 
nal language  perfeBly  well,  ever  believed,  or 
even  fufpeded,  that  the  Greek  word  baptizo^ 
always  fignified  to  dip.  The  validity  of  bap- 
lifm  was  fometimes  queftioned,  when  admin- 
iftered  by,  or  to,  an  improper  fubje^l,  but  not 
on  the  account  of  the  mode  of  adminiftration. 
The  prefent  charaQeridick  principles  of  the 
modern  baptills  v/ere  evidently  unknown  to 
the  ancients.     They  never   refufed  to  com- 


INrANT    BAPTISM.  249 

mune  with  perfons,  merely  becaufe  they  had 
not  been  dipped ;  but  readily  admitted  to 
their  communion  fiich  as  v/ere  baptized  by 
afFcfion  or  fprinkling. 

You  fay,  page  74,  "  It  was  an  early  error 
"  in  the  church,  that  baptifm  was  necelTary 
"  to  falvaiion.  Hence,  when  ii  was  judged 
"  that  life  would  be  endangered  by  immer- 
"  fion,  the  perfon  muft  either  lofe  his- life  by 
"  baptifm,  or  lofe  his  foul  for  the  want  of 
"  being  baptized,  or  fome  other  mode  muft 
"  be  invented." — "Under  thefe  circumftan- 
"  ces,  man's  fruitful  imagination  devifed 
"  fprinkling,  as  a  fubdituie  for  baptifm. — 
"  Here  is  the  origin  of  fprinkling  as  the  an- 
"  cients  have  told  us."  This,  Sir,  is  an  in- 
ference of  your  own- — an  inference  which 
the  ancients  never  avowed.  St.  Cyprian, 
who  flourifhed  about  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  Apofties,  and  to  whofe  wri- 
tings  you  have  exprefsly  referred,  in  order  to 
prove  the  aforefaid  aflertion,  was  certainly 
of  a  very  different  opinion.  He  fully  be- 
lieved that  fprinkling  was  as  truly  baptifm  as 
immerfion.  This  we  have  clearly  fhown 
from  his  own  unequivocal  declarations.  It 
is  true,  the  primitive  chriftians  did  not  un- 
dervalue baptifm.  They  did  not  defpife 
and  negle6t  this  facred  ordinance,  as  many 
do  at  the  prefent  day  ;  but  confidered  all 
fuch  unnecefiTary  and  wilful  negleOs  as  im- 
moral and  highly  criminal.  They  viewed 
baptifm  as  an  incumbent  duty  of  great  im- 


250  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

portance — equally  important  and  neceffary 
for  the  fickly  and  infirm,  as  for  the  healthy 
and  robuft — equally  neceffary  in  winter  as 
in  fummer — in  cold  as  in  warm  climates — in 
dry  feafons  and  countries,  as  in  places  a- 
bounding  with  fountains  and  ftreams  of  wa- 
ter. Accordingly,  they  adopted,  on  various 
occafions,  the  mode  of  fprinkling  ;  and  ef- 
pecialiy  in  thofe  cafes  where  dipping  was 
impraBicable,  unfafe,  or  inconvenient. 

The  ancients  never  fufpe8ed,  that  the 
mode  of  baptizing  was  defined  by  Chrifl,  or 
erijoined  by  him.  They  well  knew  that  fome 
of  the  principal  purifications,  under  the  Mo- 
faic  difpenfation,  %v'ere  performed  by  fprink-- 
ling,  and  that  thefe  fprinklings  were  exprefs- 
iy  called  baptifms,  in  the  new  teftament. 
The  prophet  had  foretold,  that  perfons  (hould 
be  fprinkled  with  clean  water.  This  predic- 
tion they  applied  to  the  chriftian  baptifm. 
Indeed  it  is  applicable  to  no  other  inflitution. 
Thefe  were  evidently  fome  of  the  principal 
arguments,  which  influenced  the  ancient 
chriftians ;  and,  in  addition  to  thefe  and  fim- 
ilar  confiderations,  they  probably  had  good 
reafons  to  fuppofe,  that  the  mode  of  fprink- 
ling was  agreeable  to  the  praQice  or  fenti- 
ment  of  the  Apo'lles. 

I  have  already  granted,  and  am  flill  ready 
to  grant,  that  fome  of  the  primitive  chrif- 
tians  put  too  much  dependence  upon  the  or- 
di nance  of  baptifm.  They  Teemed  to  fup- 
pofe, ihat  baptifm  would  enfure  their  falva- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  25! 

tiori)  and  that  none  would  be  faved  without 
it.     The  ancients  enjoyed  but  very  fmall  ad- 
vantages for  acq-uiring  religious  and  ufeful 
knowledge.      But  few   could    read.      They 
had   no   public   fchools   or   printed   books. 
They  were  of  courfe,  generally,  very   igno- 
rant and  fuperftitious.     According  to   your 
opinion,  they  were  influenced  by  fuperftition 
10  adopt  the  mode  of  fprinkling,  when  fickj 
and  when  deftitute  of  the  requifites  and  con- 
veniences  for  dipping,     With  equal,  if  not 
greater,  propriety,  I  might  relort  and  faV)  it 
was  Tuperftiiion   that   difpofed   fo   many   of 
them  to  adopt  the  mode  of  dipping,  on  oth- 
er occaiians.     For  ihey  were  firongly  difpo- 
fed to  overdo,  with  refocQ   to   the  external 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  religion.     But,  Sir, 
with  all  their  fuperftition,  ihey  were  never  fo 
fuperftitious   as  to   believe    that  the  mode  of 
baptizing  was   abfolutely  eflential  to  the  or- 
dinance ofbaptifm.     Th^y  n^wzv  rc-baptizcd 
on  this  account  3    but   believed  that  fprink* 
ling  was  a  proper  and  valid  mode  of  bapti- 
zing, and  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  original 
intention   of  Chrift  and  nature  of  the  inlii 
tution. 

Mai. kind  are  very  apt  to  be  in  one  ex- 
treme or  the  other.  Superftition  was  cha- 
raderiftick  of  the  ancients.  The  ancient 
Jews  and  profelytes  were  too  fuperfiiiiaus. 
The  religious  riles  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Mofaic  difpenfation  were  expenlive,  burden- 
fome,  and  grievous  ;   but  ihey  never  com,- 


252  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

plained — they  were  willing  to  do  tnore,  in 
thefe  refpeOs,  than  their  law  required — were 
ready  to  offer  the  moft  coftly  facrifices,  and 
even  their  own  children — their  firjl- born  for 
their  tranfgrejfion^  and  the  fruit  of  their  bodies 
for  the  fins  of  thtir  fouls.  When  the  Saviour 
was  here  on  earth,  they  were  careful  to  tithe 
the  moft  trifling  articles — anise  and  cummin^ 
and  all  manner  of  herbs.  With  the  fame  ftrid- 
nefs,  they  obferved  their  fabbaths,  fafts  and 
feftivals.  This  exaBnefs,  with  reference  to 
the  inftituted  rites  of  their  religion,  frequent- 
ly difpoTed  them  to  encroach  upon  the  great- 
er duties  of  morality.  For  while  they  {o 
fcrupuloufly  "  ftrained  at  a  gnat,  in  one 
<«  cafe,  they  often  fwallowed  a  camel,  in  the 
<«  other." 

The  primitive  chriftians  were  not  fo  im- 
inoral,  but  they  were  extremely  fuperftitious. 
When  Chrift  wafhed  his  diFciples'  feet,  Peter, 
in  the  firft  pla<:e,  obje8ed  ;  but  being  told 
that  wafhing  was  necclfary,  he  immediately 
embraced  the  oppofite  extreme.  He  was 
then  anxious  to  be  wafned  all  over;  not  his 
feet  only,  but  his  hands  a?id  his  head.  The  fame 
Apoftle  underftood  his  commiflion  fo  imper- 
fe6i!y,  that  he  needed  a  miracle,  in  order  to 
convince  him  that  it  was  lawFul  to  preach  the 
gofpel  unto  the  uncirciimcfd  gentiles. 

We  are  told  that  many  ihoufands  of  Jews 
and  profelytes  bdieved  in  Chrift.  But  the 
2ift  chapter  of  Afts  informs  us,  "that  they 
^'  all  were  zealous  of  the  law."      They   had 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  253 

been  baptized,  but  would  not  confent  to  re- 
linquifh  a  (ingle  article  of  the  Mofaic  inditu- 
tion — not  even  the  painful  rite  of  circumci- 
fion.  How  greatly  alarmed  and  difpleafed, 
when  they  heard  that  falfe  report  concerning 
St.  Paul,  viz.  "  that  he  taught  the  Jews,  who 
*•  lived  among  the  Gentiles,  to  forfakc  Mo- 
^'  les,  faying,  they  ought  not  to  circumcife 
"  their  children,  neither  walk  according  to 
**  the  cuftoms  ?" 

Let  us  now  enquire  how  Chrift  and  his 
Apoftles  conducted  toward  this  fuperftitious 
people.  The  enquiry  will  refleO;  fome  ufe- 
ful  light  upon  the  fubjeft  we  have  been  con- 
fidering.  It  is  evident  they  were  not  allow- 
ed in  any  kind  of  immoralityo  But  they 
were  treated  with  the  greateft  indulgence 
and  tendernefs  conceivable,  relauvely  to 
the  external  modes  and  forms  of  their  infti- 
tuted  rites  and  religious  ceremonies;  and 
with  refped  to  fuch  other  praQices  as  are 
not  in  themfelves  finful.  Each  one  was  per- 
mitted to  enjoy  his  own  opinion,  and  con- 
form to  his  own  habitual  cuftoms,  without 
being  molefted  or  cenfured. 

The  firft  infpired  preachers  of  the  gofpel 
w^ere  peculiarly  careful  not  to  offend  tither 
Jew,  or  Greek-,  or  the  Church  0/  God,  Our 
Saviour  told  the  Jews  "  l/iai  mercy  was  be/ore 
"facrtfice' — "  ihat  David  and  they  luho  were 
••  with  him^  when  hungry^  laafiilly  ate  theJJicw- 
*'  bread'' — "  that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
"  and  not  inan  for  the  Sabbath,''  Thefc  and 
X 


254  A^'   APOLOGY  r^R 

fimilar  obfervations  are  equally  applicable 
to  the  chriftian  bapiifm.  On  another  occa- 
fion,  he  obferved  to  his  difciples,  ^^  I  have 
"  many  things  to  fay  unto  you^  hut  ye  cannot  hear 
*'  them  now,''  He  was  unwilling  to  difturb 
their  minds,  and  fliock  their  faith,  with  fuch 
doQrines  and  truths  as  they  were  not  prepa- 
red to  receive  and  entertain.  He,  therefore, 
waited  for  the  abatement  of  their  prejudices, 
and  the  arrival  of  a  more  convenient  oppor- 
tunity. 

Again,  although  Chrifl  knev/  that  the  Ro- 
mans had  no  equitable  right  to  demand  trib- 
ute of  the  Jews;  yet,  rather  than  cccafion  of- 
ftnce^  he  procured,  in  an  extraordinary  man- 
ner, a  piece  of  filver,  in  order  to  defray  the 
taxes  affeffed  on  himfelF  and  Peter. 

The  holyApoftles  conducted  with  the  fame 
prudent,  peaceable  caution.  Tiie  Jews  who 
believed,  efteemed  circumcifion  and  the  Mo- 
faic  cttftoms  as  an  unfpeakab'e  privilege,  and 
wifhed  to  have  them  continued.  They  were 
accordingly  graufied.  Nay,  in  order  to  re- 
move fufpicion,  Sr.  Paul  circumcifed  Timo- 
thy with  his  own  hand.  In  compliance  with 
the  advice  of  the  other  Apoftles,  he  ihaved 
bis  own  head  and  purified  himfelf,  as  the  law 
ofMofes  required.  This  happened  about 
27  years  after  that  law  was  annulled  or  fu- 
perfeded  by  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 

The  believing  genriles  confidered  thefe 
Jewifh  rites  as  great  grievances,  and  requeft- 
•d  to  be  excufcd.     Thev  alfo  were  freely  in- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  255 

dalg'^d.  The  apoftolick  language  was,  "  we 
'•  that  are  ftrong,  ought  to  bear  the  infirmi- 
'•  ties  of  the  weak,  and  not  to  pleafe  ourfelves. 
"  Let  every  one  of  us  pleafe  his  neighbour, 
^'  for  his  good  to  edification.  For  even 
'•  Chriil  pleafed  not  him^^elf,  &c."— '•  For 
"  tho'igh  I  be  free  from  all  men,  yet  have  I 
'•  nriade  myfelf  fervant  un^o  all,  that  I  might 
''  gain  the  more.  To  the  Jews  I  became  as 
''  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews  -,  to  them 
"  that  are  under  tl>e  law,  as  uncier  the  law, 
''•  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  under  the 
'•  law  ;  to  them  that  are  without  law,  as  with- 
^'  out  law,  beiiig  not  wiihout  law  to  God^ 
^'  but  under  the  law  to  Chrin:,  that  I  might 
^'  gain  them  that  are  without  law.  To  the 
*'  weak,  I  became  as  weak,  that  I  might  gain 
^  the  v/eak.  1  am  made  all  things  to  all  men, 
"  that  by  all  means,  I  might  fave  fome." 

This,  Sir,  is  chriilian  candour  and  condef- 
cenfion.  Thus,  the  Apoiiies  yielded  to  the 
ignorance^  weaknefs,  prejudices,  bigotry, 
and  fuperftition  of  mankind;  in  order  to 
prevent  unnecefTary  diflentions  and  fepara- 
lions,  and  keep  the  itnily  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
cf  peace — that  the  gofpel  of  Chrifl  might  noi  be 
fruftrated  or  hindered^  hut  have  free  courfe  and 
be  glorified. 

When  therefore  we  reafon  from  analogy^ 
inference,  or  fair  implication,  it  is  natural  to 
fuppofe,  that  Chrift  meant  to  leave  the  mode 
of  bapjifm  .undecided,   that  his  Apoftles  and. 
miniltersj    in    ail    fucceeding    generations? 


%^6  AN    APOLOISY   FOR 

might  be  at  liberty  to  apply  the  baptifmal 
water,  in  fuch  a  manner  as  fhould  be  moft  ex- 
pedient, in  their  various  circumftances.  In 
this  very  refpeft,  we  difcover  the  wifdom 
and  kindnefs  of  our  common  Lord.  For  as 
chriftianity  was  defigned  to  be  an  univcrfal 
religion,  it  was  proper  that  the  rite  of  publick 
initiation  {l:iould  be  of  fuch  a  nature  as  might 
be  accommodated  to  the  condition  and  incli* 
nation  of  perfons,  in  all  ages,  and  naiionsj.. 
and  climates,  and  feafons. 

I  am,  Sir,  Sec, 


LETTER     XXIIt. 
SIR, 


I 


PERCEIVE,  in  your  letters  addrefTed  to 
Mr.  JnJer/on,  on  open  communion,  that  you. 
define  a  baptift  as  being  •«  one  who  holds  im- 
''  merfion  only  to  be  baptifm,  and  vifible  be- 
"  lievers  the  only  fubjefts."  But,  Sir,  how 
could  you,  confidently  wiih  this  definition, 
aflert  fo  pofitively,  "  that  during  the  firft 
**  century,  the  chriftians  were  all  regular  bap- 
"  tifts  ?^ — and  that  the  origin  oJ'the  psedobap- 
'•  tifts  is  at  once  traced  to  about  the  middle 
"  of  the  fecond  century  ?"  Unhappilv?  for 
the  uninformed,  prejudiced,  and  credulous 
part  of  mankind,  fuch  pedantick,  pofitive 
aiTeriions,  unaccompanied  wiih  any  evidence;. 
• 


>N^FANT    BAPTISM,  ^57 

often  prove  more  effeftual  than  the  foundeft 
reafons  and  mod  conclufive  arguments  !  It 
appears,  however,  that  a  modern  baptifl,  with 
refped  to  the  fubjefts,  holds  that  infant  bap- 
lifm  is  always  unlawful  and  invalid,  even 
when  adminiftered  by  dipping.  A  baptiil, 
with  refpeft  to  the  mode,  is  one  who  holds 
that  a  total  immerfion  or  dipping  is  abfolute- 
ly  neceOTary,  in  order  to  render  the  admin- 
iftration  of  the  ordinance  lawFuI  and  valid. 
He  confequently  refufes  to  commune  with 
thofe  perfons.  who  have  received  baptifm  in 
any  other  mode,  although  they  were  adult 
believers,  at  the  time  of  being  baptized. 
According  to  this  defcription  of  a  baptid,  I 
have  not  been  able,  after  the  m^oft  laborious 
and  careful  examination  of  hidory,  to  fir:d  a 
finole  church  or  minifter  of  that  denomina- 
lion,  before  the  twelfth  ceniurv.  Eaptifa:),  I 
have  [liown,.was  praBifed  by  fprinkling,  oc- 
cafionaily,  without  oppofiiion,  in  ihe  fecond 
century.  This  ftrongly  indicates,  that  the 
practice  was  handed  down,  even  from  the  A- 
pollles;  efpeciaily  when  v/e  confider  that 
there  is'no  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Mere 
filence,  wiih  refpecl  to  infant  baptifm,  or 
the  mode  of  baptizing,  during  the  firft  cen- 
tury, will  not  prove  that  ihofe  chriftians  were 
baptifts.  The  deprelTed,  perfecuted  chrif- 
lians  of  that  age  were  conftantly  engaged  in 
other  matters  of  areater  importance,  (ufificient 
to  occupy  all  their  time  and  all  (heir  talents-; 
X   2- 


25^  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

I  am  ready  to  admit,  that  the  Greek 
church,  and  various  other  churches  at  the 
prefent  day,  who  ftill  believe  in  the  rite  of 
infant  baptifm,  commonly  praftice  dipping. 
The  church  of  England  alfo,  according  to 
their  Rubrick,  on  ordinary  occafions,  for- 
merly praftifed  dipping;  but  they  were  not 
reftrifted  to  that  mode,  nor  was  it  ever  con- 
fidered  by  them  as  effentiai. 

It  is  a  very  common  thing,  in  fome  places, 
even  in  this  country,  for  thofe  minifters  to 
baptize,  occafionally,  by  dipping,  who  ufual- 
ly  adminifter  baptifm  by  fprinkling.  A  very 
refpeftable  minifter,  in  the  town  of  Provi- 
dence, more  than  thirty  years  ago,  baptized 
three  perfons,  on  the  fame  occafion,  in  three 
different  modes,  by  their  own  particular  de- 
fire.  The  firjl  was  fprinkled  in  the  meeting- 
houfe.  The  congregation  then  proceeded 
to  the  river,  at  which  the  fecond  had  water 
poured  upon  her  head,  and  in  which  the 
third  was  dipped.  Similar  inftances  have  fre- 
quently happened  in  latter  times.  Thefe 
brothers  and  fillers,  baptized  in  different 
modes,  fome  while  infants,  and  others  when 
rdulis,  like  ibe  primitive  chriflians,  commune 
togeth  ri;i  love  and  feliowfhip,  at  the  fame 
table  of  their  common  Lord  and  Mafter. 

Agreeably  (o  what  I  have  obferved,  Mr. 
Worcejlcr^  of  Salem,  in  a  late  publication, 
{ays,  '•  It  is  a  well  lupponed  hf!\^  that  in  the 
*•  firfl  ages  of  chriflianity,  and  for  about 
'•  twelve  or  hfiecn  hundred  years,   bapti'mj 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  259 

"  by  fprinkling  or  afFufion,  was  univerfally 
*'  allowed  to  be  fcriptural  and  valid.  Even 
**  ihofc}  who,  in  ordinary  cafes,  baptized  by 
*«  infimerfion,  did  not  deny,  but  admitted,  the 
"  validity  of  baptifnv  by  fprinkling  or  af- 
«  fufion." 

The  mode  of  fprinkling  was  alfo  counten- 
anced and  well  defended  by  Luther,  and 
Calvin,  and  Melan6lhon,  and  other  great  re- 
formers from  popery;  and  has  generally  been 
praftifed  by  proteftants,  from  that  period  to 
the  prefent  day.  If  the  primitive  chriftians 
had  believed  that  the  mode  of  dipping  was 
abfolutely  requifite  to  the  validity  of  bap- 
tifm,  no  confideration  could  have  induced 
them,  on  any  occafion,  to  fubftitute  fprink- 
ling. But,  viewing  the  mode  as  not  fixed  by 
Chrift,  and  as  not  being  effential,  the  prac- 
tice of  fprinkling  was  perfe6lly  confiftent  with 
their  fentiments.  The  fame  opinion  and 
praftices  ftill  prevail  in  thofe  churches  where 
the  right  of  infant  baptifm  is  not  denied. 

It  is  very  remarkable,  that  in  thofe  ag^s 
and  countries,  where  the  mode  of  dipping  has 
been,  or  ftill  is,  the  moil  prevalent^  there  in- 
fant baptifm  has  been  the  moft  generally  prac- 
tifed,  and  there  the  mode  of  baptizing  has  not 
been  deemed  efieniial.  Inftead,  therefore, 
of  finding  all  ihefe  people  baptifts,  but  vc^y 
few,  if  any ^  of  that  denomination,  are  to  be 
fjund  among  them.  Dr.  Wall,  who  was 
himfelf  an  advocate  for  dippingjtells  us,  '-that 
<•  all  chriilians  in  the  world,  luho  never  owned 


zSo  AN   APOLOGY    FOR.' 

^  the  pope's  authority,  do  now,  and  ever  did, 
"  dip  their  infants,  in  the  ordinary  ufe.'* 
They  always  baptized  their  infants  ;  and,  or- 
dinarily, by  dipping,  but  not  univerfally,  for 
they,  occafionally,  fprinkled  them.  The 
mode  of  dipping  was  of  ordinary  ufe  ;  but 
the  praftice  ofinfant  baptifm,in  thofe  church- 
es who  were  never  under  the  influence  of  popery^- 
appears  to  have  been  univerfal^  both  in  an- 
cient and  modern  times. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  reft  the  proof  of  in- 
fants' right  to  baptifm  upon  hiftorical  evi- 
dence, relative  to  the  ancient  praftice  of  the' 
church  in  this  refpeft.  However,  ific  fhould' 
appear,  th^at  the  churches,  foon  afier  the  A- 
poftles,  did  admit  the  infant  children  of  be- 
lieving parents  to  baptifm-— if  no  account 
can  be  produced,  of  any  church  that  reje6l> 
ed  them — if  no  individual  can  be  named, who^ 
pretended  that  the  praBice  was  unlawful,  or' 
an  innovation — ihefe  fafts  will  certainly  fur- 
nifh  a  very  weighty  argument  in  favour  of' 
the  aforefaid  doftrine. 

Baptifm  is  an  important  tranfa6iion  of  a- 
pubiick  nature.  Thofe  chriftians,  who  lived- 
and  wrote  in  the  earlieft  tnnes  after  the  Apof- 
tles,  muft  have  known  what  thfir  pra^ice 
was,  with  reference  to  the  infant  children  of 
believers.  The  teftimony  of  thefe  ancient' 
writers,  as  hiftorians  or  witneOes,  rerpe6ling' 
this  plain  matter  of  fa8,  juftly  claims  our  moft^ 
impartial  and  attentive  confideration.  It  is 
notj  however,   my  intention  to  write  a  qoe»- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  26i 

plete  hiflory  of  infant  baptifm.  A  hiftory  of 
this  kind  has  been  written  a  century  ago,  by 
Dr,  Wall,  a  very  correft  and  judicious  hiRo- 
rian.  This  hiftory  is  highly  approved  and 
recommended  by  the  beft  judges,  as  being  a 
work  of  great  merit,  candour  and  impartiality. 

On  February  9th,  1 705?  the  clergy  of  Eng- 
land, afifembled  in  general  convention.  '•  or- 
*'  dercd^  that  the  thanks  of  this  houfe  be  giv- 
"  en  to  Mr,  Wall,  vicar  of  Shoreham  in  Kent, 
*'  for  the  learned  and  excellent  bock  he  hath 
"  lately  written  concerning  infant  baptifm  ; 
"  and  that  a  committee  be  appointed  tt>  ac- 
"  quaint  him  with  the  fame."  Dr.  Atterbu- 
ry,  a  leading  member  in  faid  conveniioni 
fays,  '*  that  the  hiRory  of  infant  baptifm  was 
*'  a  book,  for  which  the  auihor  deferved  the 
"  thanks,  not  of  the  Englifh  clergy  alone,  but 
''  of  all  the  chriftian  churches."  Mr.  Whijlon 
al fo,  a  very  learned  man,  well  acquainted  with 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  four  firft 
centuries,  and  a  profeffed  b<iptift,  in  his  ad- 
drefs  to  the  people  of  that  denominasion,  de- 
clares to  them,  "  that  Dr.  Wall's  hiftory  of  in- 
^'/ant  baptifm,  as  to  fa6^s,  appeared  to  him 
"  moll  accurately  done,  and  might  be  de- 
'•  pended  on  by  the  baptifts  ihemfelves."^ 
Mfw.  0/ his  li/e,  part  2,  page  461. 

The  aforefaid  hiftory  is  ftill  extant  in  two 
volumes.  The  fame  author  has  fince  publifli- 
ed  another  volume,  which  is  a  defence  of  the 
two  former  volumes,  againft  the  reflections 
of  Dr.  Gale  and  others.      In  thefe   publica 


a62  AN    APOLOGY    FOR. 

tions.  he  has- favoured  us  with  the  teft^mony 
and  fayinos  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  with  ref- 
pe6>  to  infant  baptifm,  a  few  of  which  I  (hall 
produce,  as  authorities  on  the  prefent  oc* 
cafion. 

Jujl'in  Martyr^  who  wrote  about  40  years 
after  the  apoltoHck  age,  fays,  "  We  have  not 
'•  received  ihe  carnal  but  fpiritual  circumci- 
'•  fion.  by  baptifnn.  And  it  is  enjoined  oa 
'•  ai!  perfons  to  receive  it  in  the  fdme  w^ay.'^ 
He  here  evidently  confiders  baptifm  as  being 
in  the  place  of  circunQcifion,  and,confequent- 
}y.  like  ih:\t  ancient  riie.  defigned  for  infants 
as  Vt'ell  as  for  adults.  In  one  of  his  apolo-. 
gies  for  the  cbriftians,  he  obfcrves,  "  Seve- 
^»  ral  perfoni  among  us,  of  60  or  70  years 
'*  old,  who  were  made  difciples  to  Chnft 
"  from  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncor- 
"  rupt."— -T^^Ao  -were  made  difciples. — Take  no- 
!ict;  for  he  makes  ufe  of  the  very  fame 
word  that  was  ufed  in  the  commiflion  given 
to  the  Apoftles.  Difciple  all  natiom^  baptizing 
iherti.  Sec.  Now,  if  infant  children  were  made 
difciples,  they  were  undoubtedly  baptized. 
Jufiin  wrote  about  IC5  years  after  the  afcen- 
fion  of  Chrift.  Thofe  perfons  whom  he  men- 
tions were  then  70  years  old  ;  and  ^confe- 
quently  born  and  made  difciples,  in  the  times 
gf  the  Apoftles. 

Irenceus,^  who  wrote  about  67  years  after 
the  Apoftles,  and  was  then  an  aged  man,  fays, 
concerning  Chrift,  "  he  came  to  fave  all  per- 
*^{pns  who  by  him  are  regenerated  (or  bap- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  263 

"  tizedj  unto  God,  infants^  little  ones,  youths 
"  and  elderly  perfons."     He  fpeaks  o{ infants 
and  little  ones    as   being   regenerated.     It  is 
evident    from    his  own  words    that    he   had 
reference    to  their    baptifm  ;   for  he  tells  us, 
*«  When  Chrift  gave  his  Apoftles  the   com- 
"  mand  of  regenerating  unto  God,  he  faid.  go 
"  and  teach  all  nations  baptizing  them."     The 
ancient    Fathers     as    cuftomarily    ufed    the 
word     regeneration     for    baptifm,     as     the 
church  of  England  now  ufe  the  word  chrifl- 
ening.     Jullin  Martyr,  whofe  name  and  tefti- 
mony  we  have  already  mentioned,  fpeaking 
of  fome  particular    perfons    who    had  b^en 
baptized,  fays,  "  they  are  regenerated  !n  the 
'•  fame    way  of   regenera'ion,  in    which    we 
''  have  been  regenerated,  for  they  are  wa/Iied 
"  with  water  in  the  name  of  the    Father,  and 
«  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghojir     In  this 
fhort  fentence,  the  word  regeneration  or  re- 
generated  is  put  for  baptifm    no    lefs  than 
three  times. 

It  is  a  matter  o^  no  importance  in  the  prefent 
difpute,  whether  the  primitive  F^ihtrs  ufed 
the  aforefaid  word  properly  or  improperly. 
We  certainly  know  in  what  fenfe  they  did 
ufe  it,  and  this  is  all  the  information  needed. 
I  would  however  repeat  a  former  obferva- 
tion,  viz.  that  by  a  common  figure,  the 
thing  fignified  is  often  fubftituted  for  the 
fign,  and  the  fign  for  the  thing  fignified. 
Thus,  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  fomelimes 
put,  by  God  himfelf,  for  circumci|on;   and 


264  AN    AFOLOGY   FOR 

circumcifion,  the  fign  and  token  thereof,  is 
fomeiirnes  put  for  the  covenant.  Accord- 
ingly, baptifm  has  been  put  for  regeneration^ 
and  regeneration,  for  baptifm. 

We  have  already  fhown,  that  the  Jews 
were  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  the  Gentile 
profelytes,  even  before  the  time  of  Johnand 
x)f  Chrift.  They  confidered  thefe  profelytes 
as  being,  by  bapiirm,  born  the  children  of 
Abraham ;  and  therefore  expreffed  their 
baptifm,  by  regeneration.  Accordingly, 
Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  on  fome  particular 
occafions,  adopted  a  fimilar  language.  Our 
Saviour  faid  to  Nicodem-us,  except  one  he  horn 
again — (xcept  he  he  horn  of  water  and  of  the 
fpirit^  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  By 
this  new  birth,  Chrift  evidently  had  refer- 
ence to  water  baptifm,  as  truly  as  to  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  The  Apoftle 
Paul  ftyles  baptifm,  the  waJJiing  of  regenera- 
tion. The  ancients  commonly  expreifed 
bapiifm  with  water,  by  regeneration  ;  for 
they  confidered  this  external  facrament  as  a 
fign  of  internal,  fpiriiual  renovation  and 
purification.  Irengeus  exprefsly  calls  bap- 
tifm regeneration,  and  fays  that  infants  were 
Regenerated^  that  is.  baptized.  His  teftimony 
is  plain  and  full ;  and  cannot  be  doubted  by 
any  perfon  acquainted  wiih  the  phraieology 
and  wriiinss  of  the  Fathers.  He  mentions 
not  only  old  perfons  and  youths,  but  al fo 
little  ones,  and  even  z??/^n^j.  This  Irenseus 
was  bifliop  of  Lyons  in  France.     AccordiiJg 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  265 

to  Mr.  Dodwcll^  he  Was  born  before  the  death 
of  St.  John — was  brought  up  in  Afia,  where 
that  Apoflle  had  lived  and  died.  He  was 
acquainted  with  Polycarp  ;  and  in  his  young- 
er years,  had  often  heard  him  preach.  Poly- 
Carp  was  John's  difciple,  had  been  chofen  by 
him  to  be  bifhop  of  Smyrna — and  probably 
that  Angel  of  the  Church,  fo  highly  com- 
mended in  the  2d  chapter  of  Rev.  Irenaeus 
and  thofe  chriftians  who  lived  in  an  age  fo 
near  the  Apoftles,  and  in  a  place  where  one 
of  them  had  fo  lately  refided,  could  not  be 
ignorant—- they  mud  have  known  what  the 
apoftolick  practice  was,  with  refpe6l  to  infant 
bapiifm — a  matter  of  the  moft  notorious  and 
Ipiibiick  nature. 

Dr.  Lathrop  obferves,  *«  that  Tertullian^ 
who  flourifhed  about  one  hundred  years  af- 
ter the  Apoflles,  gives  a  plain  teftimony,  that 
the  church  admitted  infants  to  baptifm  in 
his  lime.  It  is  true,  he  advifes  to  delay  fheir 
baptifm  ;  not  becaufe  it  was  unlawful^  for  he 
allows  of  it  in  cafes  of  neceflity;  but  becaufe 
the  fponfors  were  often  brought  into  a  fnare  ; 
and  becaufe  he  imagined  that  (ins,  committed 
after  baptifm^  were  next  to  unpardonable. 
He  accordingly  advifes  that  unmarried  per- 
fons  be  kept  from  this  ordinance,  until  they 
either  marry  or  are  confirmed  in  continence. 
His  advifing  to  a  delay,  fuppofes  thai  infant 
bdpiifm  was  pra8ifed,  for  oiherwife  there 
would  have  bten  no  room  for  the  advice* 
He  does  not  f-eak  of  it  ss  an  innovaiioru 
Y 


266  AN    APOLOCY    FOR 

wViich  he  would  certainly  have  done,  had  it 
begun  to  have  been  praBifed  in  his  tinie. 
His  words  rather  imply  the  contrary.  His 
{peaking  o{ fponfors^  who  engaged  for  the  ed- 
li cation  of  the  infants  that  were  bapti^ied, 
fhows  that  there  had  been  (uch  a  cuftom. 
And  his  afking,  "  why  that  innocent  age 
"  madefuch  haft e  to  baptiim,"  fuppofts  that  in- 
fants had  ufually  been  baptized,  foon  after 
their  birth.  So  that  he  fully  enough  witneffes 
to  the/flf?,  that  it  had  been  the  pratlice  of 
the  church  to  baptize  infants.  And  his  ad- 
vice to  delay  their  bap'ifm,  till  they  were 
grown  up  and  married,  was  one  of  thofe  odd 
and  fingular  notions  for  which  this  faiher 
was  very  remarkable." 

This  quotation  agrees  well  wiih  the  ac- 
count given  of  Tertullian^  by  Dr.  Wall  and 
other  approved  writer.^?.  TertuUian  was  evi- 
dently a  man  of  abilities  and  learning,  ^.\-\A  in 
fome  refpeQs  an  ufeful  writer.  His  integrity 
and  veracity  were  never  queftioned.  But 
as  has  been  hinted,  he  held  to  fome  ftrange 
and  peculiar  notions.  He  was  not  deemed 
perfeftly  orthodox  by  the  ancient  chriflians. 
Being  a  perfon  of  warm  imagination,  he  ex- 
preffed  himfelf,  very  ftrongly,  on  difFerent 
fubje^s,  at  different  times  ;  and  fome  have 
thought,  in  a  manner  that  was  not  confiftent. 
Some  of  the  later  baptilts  have  even  pretend- 
ed that  he  denied  infant  baptifm.  But  thefe 
confideraiions  do  riot  difqaalify  him  as  a  Vvix- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  267 

nefs  in  the  prefent  cafe.     Inftead  of  invali- 
dating, they  ferve  to  confirm  his  teftimony. 

Dr.  Gill  faysj  that  Tertullian  is  the  firft 
man  who  vientions  infant  biptirni,  and  fpeaks 
againft  it ;  and  infers  that  it  had  not  come  in- 
to ufe  before  his  time.  To  this,  Mr.  Clarke 
In  his  anfwcr,  replies,  •'  So  he  is  the  fiift  man, 
'*  I  fuppofe,  that  mentions  the  bapiifm  of  un- 
"  married  people,  virgins,  and  widows,  and 
'•  fpeaks  ag  iinft  it,  and  as  earneilly  pleads  for 
'*  its  delay  till  the  danger  of  temptation  is 
'*  pad  ;  till  marriage,  or  the  abatement  of 
''  iuft.  But  will  it  thence  follow,  that  the 
*"•  bapiifm  of  fuch  unmarried  perfons  did  not 
'-  obtain  in  the  charch  till  Tertullian  s  time  ? 
''  Oi  that  it  then  firil:  began  to  be  in  ufe  ^ 
''•  Our  author  might  as  reafonably  have  in- 
'•  ferred  the  latter  opinion,  as  the  former. 
'•  But  the  very  words,  iu  which  he  exprefTes 
«•  his  advice  againft  baptizing  infants,  plainly 
*•  imj-'y  that  it  was  a  common  pradice.  Af- 
'•  ter  all,  what  is  it  that  Tertullian  has  faid 
'•  agiinft  infant  baptifm  ?  He  has  given  it  as 
"  his  judgment,  that  it  would  be  more  profita- 
"  ble  to  defer  their  baptifm,  until  they  come 
^*  to  riper  >  ears,  and  were  able  to  underfland 
''  fomething  of  its  nature  and  defign  ;  but  he 
''  does  not,  like  the  anti-paedobaptifts,  con- 
"  demn  it  as  unlawful;  which  he  would  have 
'*  done,  if  it  had  been  a  novel  praBice — an 
'•  innovation,  contrary  to  the  rule  of  fcrip- 
''  lure,  or  wiihout  the  approbation  or  direc» 
"  tion  of  the  ApoIli.es.     On  the  contraryj  he 


268  AN   APOLOGY   FOR- 

"allows  it  in  cafe  of  neceffii)^  of  ficknefs, 
'•  and  danger  of  death.  Dr.  Gill,  inftead  of 
''  faying,  that  Tertuliian  was  the  firft  man, 
"who  mentioned  infant  baptifm,  and  fpoke 
''  again  ft  it,  ought  to  have  faid,  that  he  was 
'' -i\\Q  only  many  in  all  antiquity,  whofe  wri- 
"  tings  have  come  down  to  us,  who  has  faid 
'•'  any  thing  at  all  againfl  the  pra61ice  of  bap- 
"  tizing  infants."  The  very  advice,  however, 
which  he  gave,  plainly  (hows,  that  ^ifant  bap- 
tifm was  then  commonly  pra6lifed.  He  does 
not  intimate,  that  the  praQice  was  of  human 
invention,  or  not  authorized  by  the  Apoftles. 
His  private  opinion,  wiih  refpe^l  to  the  ex- 
peftency  of  delaying  baptifm  in  feveral  ca- 
fe»,  and  the  reafons  which  he  offered,  are 
nothing  to  us.  \¥e  have  only  cited  him  as 
a  voucher  <o  an  ancient  fa61: ;  and  the  tefti- 
mony  which  he  has  given  affords  clear  and 
inconteftable  proof  of  faid  fa6l,  viz.  that  in- 
fants were  baptized  in  his  times. 

07'igcn,  who  ilourifhed  in  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  and  was  for  fome  time 
contemporary  with  Tertuliian^  in  his  8th 
homily  on  Levit.  12,  obferves,  "  David, 
i«  fpeaking  concerning  the  pollution  of  in- 
"  fants,  fays,  /  u^as  conceived  in  iniquity^  and  in 
^^Jin  did  my  mother  bring  me. forth.  Let  it  be 
<•  confidered  what  is  the  reafon,  that  whereas 
•^'ihe  baptifm  of  the  church  is  given  for  for- 
'«  givenefs,  infants  alfo,  by  the  ufage  of  the 
•«  church,  are  baptized  y  when  if  there  were 
'•  uDihing  in  infants,  which,  wanted   forgive- 


I'NFANT    BAPTISM.  269 

•  nefs  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  bapiifm  would 

<  be  needlefs  to  them.  And  again,  infants 
'  are  baptized  for  the    remiffion  of  fm.     Of 

•  what  fm  ?  Or  when  have  they  finned  ?  Or 

<  how  can  any  reafon  of  the  laver  hold  good 
«  in  their  cafe  ?  But  according  to  that  fenfe 
'  before  mentioned,  none  is  free  from  pollu- 
"*  tion,  though  his  life  be  only  the  length  of 
'  one  day  upon  the  earth,      li  is  for  this  rea- 

•  fon  that  infants  are   baptized,  becaufe  by 

•  the  facrament  of  baptifm,  our  pollution  is 
'•  taken   away."       In    another    treatife,    he 

fays,  "  the   church  had  a  tradition,  or  com- 
mand  from  the  Apoftles.  to  give  baptifiiv 

•  to  infants;  for  they,  to  whom  the  divine 
^  myReries  were  committed,  knew  that  there 

•  is,  in  all  perfons,  the    natural  polluiion   of 

•  fin,  which  ought  to  be  waftied  away  by 
^  water  and  the  fpirit ;  by  reafon  of  which 
«  pollution,  the  body  itfeif  is  alfo  called  the 

•  body  of  fin:'  Sec.  &c. 

Thefe-  teftimonies  of  OrigensLr^  fall  and 
unequivocal.  They  put  the  matter  in  de- 
bate beyond  all  reafonable  doubr,  if  any 
credit  can  be  given  to  them  ;  and  no  reafon 
aopears,  why  they  fhould  not  be  ciediied. 
It  is  true  they  are  taken  from  Latin  tranfia- 
lions.  Origen  wrote  in  the  Greek  language. 
But  the  fidelity  of  the  tranflitors  and  authen- 
ticity of  ihefe  pafiTages,  have  been  (ufficiently 
vindicated  by  Dr.  Wall,  even  to  the  entire 
fatisfatlion  of  all  impartial  enquirers.     None 


•27^  AN    APOLOGY    FOR '; 

will  objeft,  but  thofc  perfons  who  are  dif-'^ 
pofed  to  cavil. 

I  perceive  that  you  have  admitted  the 
aforefaid  facls ;  blit  have  made  an  unufual 
outcry  againfl  the  tradition  and  order  from 
the  Apoftlesj  mentioned  by  Origen.  There 
is,  I  fufpe^:,  more  policy  and  popularity  ia 
your  remarks,  than  real  weight.  It  will  not' 
do  for  us  to  turn  thofe  v/eapons  againft  the 
ancient  Fathers  and  Holy  Apoftles,  which 
the  proteftants  have  ufed  with  fo  much  fuc- 
ceCs^  in  their  difputes  with  the  papifts. 

Let  us  hear  what  St.  Paul  fays,  wkh  refpe6l 
lo  traditions.  2  ThefT.  ii.  15.  "  Therefore, 
'•brethren,  jland  fajl^  and  hold  the  traditions 
"  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  hy 
"  u^ord^  or  our  epiftle."  And  in  the  3d  chap. 
6th  verfe,  he  fays,  "  Now  we  command  you," 
"  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jefus 
**  ChriQ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourfelves  from 
''  every  brother  that  walketh  diforderly,  and' 
^  not  after  iht  tradition  which  he  received  of 
"us.'*  So  alfo  in  i  Corin.  iiih  chap.  2d 
verfe.  "Now  I  praife  you,  brethren,  that  ye 
^  remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the 
•'  ordinances  (the  traditions^  paradofeis)  as  I 
"  delivered  them  to  you."  The  Apoftle 
was  here  ^''peaking  of  chriftian  ordinance?, 
which  he  calls  traditions.  The  original  word 
fignifies  traditions^  and  is  fo  rendered  by  our 
tranflators  in  the  other  aforecited  paifages. 

Thus,  Sir,  you  fee  in  what  a  folemn  man- 
ner— in,  the  name  of  Chnji^  the  holy  Apoftle 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  271' 

diarged  the  primitive  chriftians,  to  hold  and 
keep  the  UdL^Xiions — not  merely  fuch  as  had 
been  written  by  the  pen  of  infpiration,  but 
alfo  thofe  which  were  delivered  to  them  by 
word^  or  in  an  oral  and  verbal  manner,  and 
with  particalar  reference  to  the  rules  and 
ordinances  of  the  gofpel.  The  traditions 
and  commandments  of  mere  men,  which 
pretend  to  divine  authority,  are  to  be  reje6l- 
ed.  But  thofe  traditions  are  not  to  be  treated 
with  fneer  and  ridicule,  which  were  deliver- 
ed by  the  Apoftles  to  the  primitive  chriftians 
— recorded  and  authenticated  by  the  ancient 
Fathers^ — and  tranfmitted  down  to  us,  by  the- 
faithful  hiftorian; 

Origen  has  exprefsly  informed  us,  that  in- 
fant baptifm  was  praQifed  in  his  time.  With- 
refpe6l  to  this  matter  of  faQ,  Origen  was  cer^ 
tainly  a  competent  wi tne fs ;  and  he  had  ev- 
ery opportunity  and  advantage  for  knowing 
what  had  been  the  pra8ice  of  his  predecef- 
fors  and  even  of  the  Apoftles.  Many  of  the 
ancient  Fathers  were  illiterate,  and  defcend- 
ed  from  heathen  parents;  and  being  the  firft 
of  their  family  who  embraced  chriftianity, 
muft  have  been  baptized  when  adults.  But 
Origen  was  one  of  the  moft  learned  men  of 
the  age.  He  was  born  and  educated  at 
Alexandria  in  Egypt^  but  travelled  into  Rome^ 
and  Greece^  and  Capadocia'i  and  Arabia.  He 
refided  for  fome  time  in  feveral  of  the  moft 
eminent  churches,  and  fpent  the  greateft 
par^  of  his  life  in  Syria  and  Paleftine.     His 


Sf72-  ^N    APOLOGY   FOR' 

anceftors  were  chriftians.  Eufebins  tells  us,- 
that  his  forefathers  had  been  chriftians,  for 
feveral  generations.  His  father  was  martyr- 
ed, in  the  perfecution  under  Sevenis, 

It  is  very  remarkable,  that  his  pedigree 
fhould  have  beenfo  accurately  afcertained. 
The  occafion  was  this :  Porphyry^  a  great 
enemy  to  chriftianity,  had  reprefented  the 
chriftians  as  being  an  ignorant  people,  defti- 
tute  of  fcience;  but  not  being  able  to  con- 
ceal the  repute  of  Origen,  for  his  uncommon 
ftiill  in  human  literature,  pretended  that  he 
had  been  at  firft  a  heathen,  and  had  learned 
their  philofophy.  In  order  to  confute  this 
falfehood,  Eufebim  enquired  into  his  anceftryy- 
and  fet  forth  his  chriftian  defcent. 

Origen  was  born  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
185,  that  is,  85  years  after  the  Apoftles.  He 
was  17  years  old  when  his  father  fufFered 
martyrdom.  He  had  himfelf,  undoubtedly, 
been  baptized  in  his  infancy  ;  and  muft  have 
been  informed  concerning  rhe  pra8ice  of 
the  Apoftles,  refpeBing  the  baptizing  of  in- 
fants; for  his  grandfather,  or  at  icaft  his- 
great  grandfather,  lived  in  the  apoftolick^ 
times,  and  they  both  were  chriftians.  This 
is  the  man,  who  has  exprefsly  declared,  that 
infants  were  baptized  in  his  day,  and  that  the 
church  was  dircQed  by  an  order  or  tradition 
from  the  Apoftles,  to  baptize  them.  His 
circumftances  were  fuch  as  afforded  him  all- 
the  nect  ftary  and  fuitable  means  for  obtain- 
ing   iaforination.     We    have   no  reafon  to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  273 

AifpeQ  his  credibility  as  a  witnefs  ;  and 
nothing  can  be  more  unreafonable,  than  to 
reje6l  or  treat  his  teftimony  with  contempt. 
It  is  a  circumftance  worthy  of  our  very  par- 
ticular notice^  that  Origen  and  the  other  an- 
cient Fathers  do  not  fpeak  of  infant  baptifm 
as  being  a  praBice  that  was  denied  or  oppofed 
by  any  one.  They  mention  it  as  a  pra6i:ice 
generally  known  andapproved,  and  for  the 
purpofe  of  illuilrating  and  confirming  other 
points  that  were  then  difputed. 

I  fhall  now  produce  the  teftimony  of  the 
blefled  martyr  Cyprian^  who  was  for  fome 
time  contemporary  with  Origen  ;  and  next  to 
iiim,  the  moft  noted  chriftian  writer  of  that 
age.  Cyprian  was  conftituted  bifhop  or 
miniQer  of  Carthage,  in  the  year  248.  and: 
Origen  died  in  the  year  252.  The  teftimo- 
ny of  this  ancient  faint,  to  which  I  now  have 
an  immediate  reference,  was  occafioned  by 
a  quedion  propofed,  to  him.  by  one  Fidus,  a 
prefbyter^  or  miiiifter  in  the  country,  viz. 
Whether  an  infant  migkt  he  baptized  before 
he  was  eight  days  old  ?  The  re  a  Ton  of  his 
doubt,  it  feems,  was  an  article  in  the  law 
refpecling  circumcifion,  which,  under  the 
old  teftament  difpenfation,  required  that  in- 
fants (hould  be  circumcifed  on  the  eighth 
day  from  their  birth.  Purfuantto  the  afore- 
faid  queftion,  an  ecclefiaftical  council  of  ^% 
biftiops,  having  convened  at  Carthage,  A.  D. 
253,  Cyprian  propofed  a  refolution  of  the 
following  impor*,  viz.  '•  that  an  infant  might 


2  74  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

*'  be  baptized  on  the  fecond  or  third  day,  or 
"  at  anv  time  after  its  hirdi ;  and  that  cir- 
''  cumcifion,  befides  being  a  facramental 
'•  rite,  had  fomething  in  it  of  a  typical  nature  ; 
'•  and  particularly,  in  the  circumftance  of 
"  being  adminiflered  on  the  eighth  day, 
"  which  ceafed  at  the  coming  of  Chrift,  who 
"  has  given  us  baptifm,  ihe^  fpiiiiual  circum- 
*'  cifion  ;  in  which  ordinatice,  we  are  not 
''  thus  reftri^ed,  with  refpeQ  to  the  age  or 
'•  time  of  adminiilration."  To  this  refolu- 
tion  the  council  agreed  u.nanimoufty  ;  as  it 
appears  from  the  tefiimony  of  Cyprian  in  his 
e  pi  file  to  Fid'.s^  from  ^^•hich  I  fhail  extra8  a 
icw  paragraphs,  in  order  to  (how  the  fenti- 
ments  of  thofe  venerable  and  ancient  r?.inis 
relatively  to  infant  baptifm.— The  infcrip- 
lion  is  as  follows  : 

'•  Cyprian  and  the  reft  of  the  colleagues, 
'•  who  are  piefent  in  council,  in  num- 
•'  her  fixryTix,  to  Fidus  our  brother, 
'•  Greetingy 

'•  As  to  the  cafe  of  infants,  whereas  yoii^ 
^^  pdgt  that  thy  mvjl  net  he  baptized  zvithin  two 
'•  or  three  days  ajler  ihty  arc  horn ;  and  that  the 
**  laiv  cif  the  ancient  circuvici fion  is  to  ht  chjcrvcd  ; 
^'*  fo  that  you  think  none  Jkiuld  be  baptized  and 
^^  fanclijiedy  until  the  eighrh  day  a/:er  :he:r  birth  ; 
'•  we  were  all  in  our  allcnjbl)  of  a  quiie  dif- 
'•  ferent  opinion.  For  in  this  matter,  with 
'•  relpetl  to  that  which  you  thought  fitting  to 
*•  be  done,  there  was  not  one  of  your  mind. 
^^  But  all  ol"  us  rather  judged,  that  the  grace 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  275 

'•  and   mercy  of  God  is  not  to  be  denied  to 
"  any  per  Ton  b^rn.     For  whereas  our  Lord 
"  in  his  goTpel  fays,  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to 
''  deflrc^  mens  fouh  (or  lives)  hut  to  fave  thein. — 
«'  Tl>at  the  eighth  day?  appointed  to  be  ob^ 
«'  ferved  in  the  jewilh  circumcifion,   was  a 
"  type  going  before   in  a  fFiadow  or   refem- 
«^  blance,  but  on  Chrin's  coming  was  fulfilled 
«•  in  the   Rib  fiance  3  for   becauCe   the  eighth 
*'  day,  that  is  the  next  after  the  fabbaih,  was 
<'  to   be  the  day  on  which    the  Lord   was  to 
''  rife    from    the   dead,  and    quicken  us,  and 
«'  give   us  the  fpiritual   circurricifion.     This 
"  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  next  to  ihe  fabbath, 
''  or  the  Lord's  day,  went  before  in  the  type, 
''  which   type    ceafed    when    the     fubflance 
*^  came,  and    the    fpiritual    circumcifion  was 
"  given  to  us.     So  that  we  judge,  no  perfon 
"  is  to  be  hindered  from  obtaining  the  grace, 
'•  (that  is  ofhaptijm)  by  the  law  which  is  now 
"  edablifiied  ;  and  that  the  fpiritual  circum- 
"  cifion   ought  not   to  be    reftrained   by  the 
"  circumcifion  which   was  according    to  ihe 
''  flefli ;   but  that  all  are  to  be  admitted  to  the 
"  grace  of  Chrid ;   fmce    Peter,    fpeaking  irr 
"  the   A6ts   of  the    Apoftles,    fays,   the    Lord 
"  hath  Jlioian  me  that  no  perfon  is  to  be  called 
"  common  or  unclean.     This,   therefore,  dear 
"  brother,  was  our  opinion  in  the  aCembly, 
"  that  it  is  not  for  us  to  hinder  any  perfon 
"  from  baptifm,  and  from  the  grace  of  God, 
"  who  is  merciful,  and  kind,  and  afFcBionate 
*'  to  all.     Which  rule,   as  it  holds  for  all,  fo 


S.'jS  AxV   APOLOGY    FOR 

^'  we  think  it  is  more  efpecially  to  be  ob- 
"  ferved  in  reference  to  infants,  and  thofe 
"  that  are  newly  born,  to  whom  pur  help  and 
*'  the  divine  mercy  is  rather  to  be  granted, 
"  becaufe  by  their  weeping  and  wailing  at 
"  their  firft  entrance  into  the  world,  they  do 
*'  intimate  nothing  fo  much  as  that  they  im- 
*'  plore  compafTion,"  &c. 

I  pre  fume,  Sir,  that  you  never  read  the 
refult  of  this  council;  for  your  pretended 
^information,  it  feems,  was  derived  from  an 
"  ancient  dialogue  revifed."  How  ftrange- 
ly  have  the  plaineft  matters  offa6l  been  mif- 
underflood  and  mifreprefentedl — The  coun- 
cil at  Carthage  was  not  defigned  to  eftablifh 
the  praBice  of  infant  baptifm,  or  to  confider 
and  decide  the  queftion  of  their  right  to  the 
ordinance;  concerning  this  they  entertained 
no  doubt.  That  infants  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized, was  taken  for  granted  both  by  Fidus^ 
and  by  Cyprian^  and  by  the  council  of  6S 
bifliops.  It  is  true  Fidus^  who  propofed  the 
cafe,  fuppofed  that  their  baptifm  could  not 
be  adminiflered  with  propriety,  before  the 
eighth  day,  to  v;hich  circumcifion  had  been 
reftriBed.  But  the  council  were  unanimoufly 
of  a  different  opinion^^  as  it  appears  from,  their 
decifioh.  The  proceedir  gs  of  the  aforefaid 
council  are  particularly  ftated  by  Saint  Cy- 
prian,  in  an  cpifllt  which  he  wrote  about  150 
years  after  the  Apoftles.  And,  '•  there  is  no 
*•  piece,  fays  Dr.  Wall,  in  all  mliquity,  that  can 


INFANT  BAPTISM,  277 

"  he  proved  more  certainly  to  he  genuine^  than 
«  thisr 

It  is  impoflible  that  infant  baptifm  fhould 
have  been  an  innovation.  The  fuppofition 
is  utterly  incredible.  There  was  not,  we 
are  exprefsly  told,  one  man  in  that  afTcmbly, 
who  fuppofed  it  neceflary  that  baptifm  fhould 
be  omitted  until  the  eighth  day;  and  cer- 
tainly none  could  think  it  ought  not  to  be 
adminiftered  to  infants  at  all.  It  was  an 
unanimous  vote,  that  infants  might  be  bap. 
tized  lawfully  and  properly,  even  on  the 
fecond  or  third  day  after  their  birth.  This 
general  confent  fufficiently  proves,  that  the 
right  of  infant  baptifm  had  been  eftabHfhed 
and  approved  by  long  cuftom.  Befides, 
many  of  thefe  minifters  were  probably  60  or 
70  years  old,  and  had  been  baptized  in  their 
infancy. — -Their  parents  or  grand  parents 
undoubtedly  lived  in  the  firft  century,  and, 
it  is  likely,  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
pradice  of  the  Apoftles  themfelves. 

Saint  Ambrofe^  who  wrote  about  274 
years  after  the  Apoftles,  declares  exprefsly, 
^'  that  infant  baptifm  was  pra6tifed  in  his 
"  time,  and  in  the  time  of  the  Apoftles." 

Saint  Chryjojlom  obferves  "  that  perfons 
''  may  be  baptized  either  in  their  infancy,  in 
'*  middle  age,  or  in  old  age." — He  tells  us, 
''  infants  were  baptized,  although  they  had 
''  no  fin;  and  that  the  fign  of  the  crofs  was 
"  made  upon  their  foreheads  at  baptifm." — 
S^int  Hierome  fays,  ••  if  infants  be  no:  bap- 
Z 


278  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

"  tized,  the  fin  of  omitting  their  baptifm  is 
"  laid  to  the  parent's  charge." — Saint  Aujiin^ 
who  wrote  at  the  fame  time,  about  280  years 
after  the  Apoftles,  fpeaks  "  of  infant  baptifm 
"  as  one  of  thofe  praftices  which  was  not 
"  injlituted  by  any  council  but  had  ahvays  been 
"  in  ufe.  The  whole  church  of  Chrijl^  he  in- 
"  forms  us,  hadb  conjlantly  held  that  infants 
"  were  baptized  for  the  forgivenefs  of  fin." — 
''  That  he  had  never  read  or  heard  of  any 
"  Chrijlian.  Catholic  ox  SeBary^v^ho  held  other- 
"  wife." — "  That  no  chriftian,  of  any  fort, 
'^  ever  denied  it  to  be  ufeful  or  neceffary." 
"  If  any  one,"  faith  he,  "  fhould  afk  for  di- 
*«  vine  authority  in  this  matter,  though  that, 
«  which  the  whole  church  praBifes,  and 
«  which  has  not  been  inftituted  by  councils, 
«'  but  was  ever  in  ufe,  may  be  believed,  very 
''  reafonably,  to  be  a  thing  delivered  or  or- 
"  dered  by  the  Apoftles,  yet  we  may,  be- 
"  fides,  take  a  true  eftimate,  how  much  the 
"  facrament  of  baptifm  does  avail  infants,  by 
"  the  circumcifion  which  God's  former  peo- 
'••  pie  received." 

No  one  of  thefe  ancient  Fathers  ever 
wrote  direftly  in  favour  of,  or  againft,  infant 
baptifm.  In  their  various  difcourfes  and 
writings,  they  often  mention  it,  occafionally 
and  tranfienlly,  when  difcourfing  on  fome 
other  fubjed. — They  mention  it  as  a  general 
praBice  of  univerfal  notoriety,  about  which 
there,  was  no  controverfy,  in  order  to  con- 
fute fome  prevailing  herefy,  or  eftablilh  cer- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  279 

tain  doftrines,  that  were  then  difputed. 
Similar  teftimonies  might  eafily  be  produced 
from  the  writings  of  many  other  ancient 
witnefTes,  but  this  would  unnecedarily  add  to 
the  prolixity  of  the  prefent  work.  I  will 
therefore  conclude,  by  ftating  very  briefly, 
the  inconteftible  and  conclufive  evidence  in 
proof  of  infant  baptifm,  arifing  out  of  the 
well  known  Pelagian  controverfy  refpe^ling 
original  (in,  which  happened  about  300  years 
after  the  Apoftles. 

Pelagius  held,  that  infants  were  born  free 
from  anv  nainral  and  finful  defilements. 
The  chief  cppofers  of  him  and  his  adherente 
were  Saint  Hieroyne,  and  Saint  Aiijlin^  who 
conAanily  urged,,  very  clofely,  in  all  their 
writings  upon  the  fubjecl,  the  following  ar- 
gument, viz.  ''That  infants  are^  hy  all  chrif- 
^  tians\  acknnzvleJged  tojlandin  need  ojhaptijm^ 
"  which  mujl  be  in  them  for  original  fin,,  fince 
"  they  have  no  other,"  '*  If  ihey  have  no  fin, 
"  why  are  they  then  baptized,  according  to 
"  the  rule  of  the  church,  y^?'  the  forgivenefs  of 
^'fns  P  Why  are  they  wafied  in  the  laver  of  re- 
"  generation,  if  they  have  no  polliition  T'  Pcla^ 
gins,  and  alfo  Celeflius,  one  of  his  principal 
abettors,  were  extremely  puzzled  and  em- 
barrafTed  wiih  this  argument.  They  knew 
not  how  to  evade  or  furmount  its  force,  but 
by  involving  themfelves  in  greater  abfurdi- 
ties  and  difficulties.  Some  perfons  aggra- 
vated the  i^'uppofed  error,  by  charging  upon 
them  the  denial  of  infant  baptifm,  as  a  confer- 


280  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

qiience  that  followed  from  their  tenet.  Ft- 
lagius  difclaimed  the  flanderous  imputation 
with  abhorrence,  declaring  that  he  was  ac- 
cafed  falfely.  In  the  confefiion  of  faith, 
Pelagius  then  exhibited,  which  Dr.  Wall 
has  recited,  he  owns,  "  thai  haptijm  ought  to 
*"'  he  adminiftered  to  infants^  with  the  fame  facra- 
"  mental  zuords  which  are  iifed  in  the  cafe  of  adult 
^*  perfons" — He  vindicates  himfelf  in  the 
ftrongeft  terms,  faying,  "  that  men  Jlander 
*•  hiyn  as  if  he  denied  the  facrament  ofhaptifm  to 
••  infants^  and  did  promife  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
*'  to  any  perfon  without  the  redemption  cf  Chrifl; 
'•  and  afffirms  that  he  never  heard  of  any,  not 
*•  even  the  mofl  impious  heretick,  that  zcculd  fay 
'"'fitch  a  thing  of  infants.''  Now  thefe  diffi- 
calties  would  have  been  inftantly  removed, 
and  ihe  battery,  whicl}  fo  greatly  annoyed 
thein,  been  demoliihed  at  once,  by  only  de- 
nying that  infants  were  to  be  baptized.  But 
they  did  not  fuggeft  or  entertain  any  doubt  at 
all  refpe6iing  this  do61rine.  Pelagius  readily 
avowed,  in  the  moft  explicit  manner,  the  in- 
contefted  right,  and  the  eftabliCied  immemo- 
rial praBice  of  infant  baptifm.  Cclefius  alfc 
confeffed,  "  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized 
"  according  to  the  rule  of  the  univerfal  church,'" 
One  of  thefe  men  was  born  and  educated 
in  Britain,  and  the  other  in  Ireland.  They 
both  lived  a  long  time  at  Rome,  the  centre 
of  the  world  and  place  to  which  all  people 
reforted.  Celefius  fettled  at  Jerufalem,  and 
Pelagius    travelled  over    all    the    principal 


IMTANT     BAPTISM. 


8i 


churches  of  Europe,  Afia  and  Africa.  If 
there  had  been  any  nun^bcrof  churches,  or  a 
fingle  church,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  not 
only  in  that,  but  in  the  two  preceding  ages,» 
who  denied  the  baptifm  of  infants,  thefe 
learned,  fagacious  perfons  muft  have  known 
or  heard  of  it;  and  certainly  they  would 
have  mentioned  it,  in  order  to  check  the 
triumph  of  their  opponents,  and  to  wrefl: 
from  them  that  argument,  by  which,  above 
all  others,  they  were  mod  grievoufly  preffed; 
It  is  evident  there  was  no  fociety  of  baptifls 
then  in  the  world,  nor  had  there  been  any  of 
that  denomination,  within  the  memory  of 
man.  The  confefiTion  of  Pelagius  and  Ce- 
leftius  amounts  almoft  to  demonftration.  It 
proves,  beyond  all  reafonable  doubt,  that  in- 
fant baptifm  had  univerfally  obtained,  and 
had  always  been  praBifed  among  chriflians, 
even  from  the  apoftoiick  limes. 

Dr.  Wall,  who  enjoyed  the  bell:  advan- 
tages for  being  acquainted  with  the  hiiicry 
of  infant  baptifm,  and  who  made  this  the- 
principal  fubjeft  of  his  (iudiesand  enquiries^ 
briefly  fums  up  the  evidence  on  both  ride5, 
in  the  following  words:  '*  Ladiy,  for  the 
'•  firft  four  hundred  yearf,  there  appears 
*-*  only  one  man,  Tertullian.  who  advi fed  the 
^  delay  of  infant  baptifm  in  fome  cafes,  and 
'*  one  Gregory^  \^jho  did  pej'haps  pra8ife  fucff 
"  delay  in  the  cafe  of  his  own  children;  but 
*•  no  fociety  of  men  fo  thinking  or  fo  prac- 
<*  lifing  ;  or  any   one   man  faying   it  was  un^ 

Z   2 


282  AN'    APOLOGY    FOR. 

''  lawful  to  baptize  infants.  So  in  the  next 
'<  feven  hundred  years,  there  is  not  fo  much 
'«  as  one  man  to  be  found,  who  either  fpoke 
«  for  orpraQifed  any  fuch  delay f.  but  all  the 
"  contrary.  And  when  about  the  year  one 
"  thoufand  one  hundred  and  thirty,  one  fe6: 
"  among  the  Waldenfes  or  Albigenfes  de- 
''•  clared  againft  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as 
"  being  incapable  ofjalvation^  the  main  body  of 
"  that  people  rejefted  their  opinion  ;  and 
"  they  of  them  who  held  that  opinion,  quick- 
<*  ly  dwindled  away  and  difappeared,  there 
'•  being  no  more  perfans  heard  of,  holding 
"  that  tenet,  until  the  rifing  of  the  German 
^  anti-paedobaptifts  in  the  year  1522." 
1  am,  Sir,  Sec, 


LETTER     XXIV. 

SIR, 


I 


HAVE  had  occafion.  feveral  times,  to 
mention  the  vague  and  indefinite  manner  in 
which  you  have  ufed  the  word  bapiifis.  But 
in  your  •'  fniniaiure  hiftory"  you  have  adopt- 
ed a  fenfe  entirely  new,  which  I  never  read 
or  hcrird  of  before.  You  tell  us  from  Dr, 
Mo/hi i7n^  "  that  the  true  fource  of  all  the 
*'  peculiarities  now  to  be  found  in  the  re- 
"  iigious  do61rii)e  and  difcipline  of  the  Men- 
"  noLiics  (or  baptills  in  the  north  or  Europe) 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  2 8^ 

"is  to  be  found  in  the  following  maxim,  viz. 
"  that  the  kingdom  of  Chrijl^  or  vijibk  church,^ 
''  which  he  had  eJlahUpied  on  earthy  was  an  ajfem- 
"  hly  offaintS'i  and  ought  therefore  to  be  inaccejfi- 
"  hie  to  the  wicked  and  unrighteous^  and  alfo  ex- 
''  empt  from  all  thofe  inftitucions^  zvhich  himian 
'^  prudence  fugge/ls  to  oppofe  the  progrefs  of  ini- 
"  quitys  or  correH  and  reform  tranfgrejfors.'' 

From  the  aforefaid  maxim,  different  per- 
fons  have  deduced  different  principles  and 
prafclices.  Moflieim  does  not  intin:"iate,  as 
you  have  afferted,  that  all  thofe  perfons  who 
adopted  this  maxim,  were  bcptifls.  He  does 
not  pretend,  as  you  have  done,  that  the 
Waldenfes,  and  Wicklijttes,  and  Huffitis,  were 
baptifts.  He  knew  they  never  had  denied 
the  right  of  infant  baptifm,  or  held  to  the 
neceflity  of  dipping.  And  thus  it  is  with 
many  at  the  preient  day,  who  have  embraced 
the  fame  maxim,  or  fentiments  of  a  fimllar 
nature.  They  flill  continue  confcienuoufly 
in  the  praQice  of  bapiizing  infants.  But 
Dr.  Moflieim  fays,  "  that  the  diftinguifhing 
"  principles  of  the  Mennonites  at  this  day,  flow 
"  from  the  aforefaid  doQrine  concerning  the 
''  church."—"  That  it  is  in  confequence  of 
*'  thisdoQrine  (or  maxim)  ihai  they  admit  none 
"  to  the  facrament  of  baptifni'^  but  perfons  who  are 
'*  com^:  to  the  full  ufe  of  reafon," — That  "  it  is 
*'  in  confequence  of  the  (ame  do6lrine,  that 
"  they  neither  admit  civil  rulers  into  their  com- 
"  munion,  nor  allow  any  of  their  members  to 
* '  p^ rform  the    f u  n  c\ i o  n s    of   magijl ra cy  ;     f o r 


2^4  AN    APOLOGY   FOR- 

«<•  where  there  are  no  malefaftors,  inagiftrates 
"  are  ufelefs.     Hence    alfo   they  pretend   to 

*'  deny  the  laxvfidnefs  of  repelling  force  hy  force^ 
"  and  confider  war^  in  all  its  Jhapes^  as  imchrif 
"  tian  and  unjuji.  For  as  thofe  who  are  per- 
"  feftly  holy  can  neither  be  provoked  by 
"injuries,  nor  commit  them,  they  do  not 
"  need  the  force  of  arms,  either  for  the 
"  purpofe  of  refentment  or  defence." — Ac- 
"  cording  to  this  principle,  there  are  no  iranf- 
"  greffions  in  the  kingdom  of  Chrift,  and 
"  confeqaentfy  no  occafion  for  the  aathori- 
"  ty  of  the  judge." — "  The  members  of  a 
"  holy  church  can  neither  diflemble  nor 
"  deceive  ;  they  accordingly  refufe  to  confir^ii 
"  their  teflimony  by  oath"  &c. 

Thefe  inferences,  which,  we  are  told,  the" 
Mennonites  admitted,  were  difavowcd  by  the 
Waldenfes  in  general.  It  is  true,  Mofbeim 
tells  us,  "  that  the  Mennonites  are  notentire- 
"  ly  miftaken,  when  they  boaft  their  defcent 
''  from  the  Waldenfes,  Petrobruffians,  and 
"  other  ancient  feQs,  who  are  ufually  con- 
'•  fidered  as  xxdtncfjls  of  the  truths  in  the  times 
"  of  univerfal  darknefs  and  fuperftition." 
But  if  the  Mennonites,  who  were  baptifts, 
defcended  from  the  Waldenfes,  this  does  not 
prove  that  the  Waldenfes  were  baptifts.  If 
the  inhabitants  of  Sedgzuick  are  baptifts,  this 
will  not  prove  that  the  people  of  New-Eng- 
land, from  whom  they  defcended,  are  uni- 
verfaliy  or  generally  of  the  fame  denomina- 
tion.    The  account   given  by  Dr.  Mofheinnt 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  285 

is  perfe6lly  confiftent  v;ith  what  Dr.  Wall 
has  obferved,  viz.  "  that  there  was  one  ^e^ 
"  of  the  Waldenfes  who  declared  ag.inft  the 
**  baptizing  of  infaius,  but  the  main  body  of 
**  that  people  rejefted  their  opinion." 

How  could  you  reprefent  "  Dr.  MoQieim, 
"  Dr.  Maclain,  and  Prefident  Edwards,  as 
<*  teftifying  that  the  Waldenfes,  HafTites,  and 
"  Wickiiffites,  were  efTentially  the  fame  wiih 
"  the  baptifts  of  latter  times ;  or  that  they  all 
*'  were  what  we  call  baptifts."  The  affertion 
is  wholly  without  foundation.  Thofe  learn- 
ed men  whom  you  have  named,  never  faid 
nor  intimated  that  thefe  ancient  witnejfes  of 
the  truth  denied  infant  baptifm,  or  held  to 
the  necefTiiy  of  dipping. — But  they  were 
haptifiS,  forfooth,  according  to  your  new 
fangled  definition  of  the  word,  becaufe  they 
adopted  a  certain  rriaxim^  refpe8ing  the  puri- 
ty of  the  church,  which.  Dr.  Mofiieim  fays, 
difpofed  the  Mcnnonites  to  admit  none  but 
adults  to  the  facrament  of  baptifm.  Strange- 
fophiftry  1 

It  \s  true,  Prefident  Edwards  fuppofed 
that  the  Waldenfes  derived  their  name  from 
the  vallies  of  Piedmont;  ai^d  that  this  was 
the  place,  from  Vv-hence  they  originated. 
But  he  never  faid  nor  fafpeBed,  that  the  an- 
cient inhabitants  of  thofe  vallies  were  bap- 
tifts. He  confidered  them  as  holding  the 
primitive  doBrines  of  chriftianity  ;  and  in 
his  hiftory  of  redemption,  mentions  Mr^ 
Toplady  as  being  of  the  fame  opinion.      He 


286  AN    APOLOGY   FORT 

points  out  very  particularly  from  an  old  con- 
feffion  of  faith,  and  other  authentic  teflimo- 
nies,  their  leading  and  peculiar  fentiments^ 
and  efpecially  as  they  differed  from  the 
opinion  and  praftice  of  the  Romifh  church. 
But  this  great  and  learned  man  does  not  in- 
timate that  they  denied  or  neglefted  infant 
baptifm.  He  found  no  fuch  article  in  their 
erecd. 

Dr.  Wall  fays,  exprefsly,  "  that  the  prefent 
"  Waldenfes,  or  Vandois  in  Piedmont,  do 
••  pra6life  infant  baptifm,  and  ibey  were 
^*  found  in  the  praBice  of  it,  when  the  pro- 
"  teftants  of  Luther's  reformation,  fent  to 
*'  know  their  ftate  and  do6lrine,  and  to  con- 
"  fer  with  them;  and  they  themfelves  do 
"  fay  that  their  fathers  never  praftifed  oiher- 
"  wife  ;  and  this  they  prove  from  an  old  book 
"  of  theirs  called  the  Spiritual  Almanack,  in 
"  which  infant  baptifm  is  owned.  And  Peririj 
"  their  hiftorian,  mentions  the  reafon  of  the 
"  contrary  report,  viz.  Tkat  their  ancejlors^  be- 
"  ing  ccvjlrained  for  feveral  hundred  years  to  fiif- 
^^  Jer  their  children  to  he  baptized^  by  the  priejis  of 
'•  the  church  of  Rome^4hey  deferred  their  baptifm 
''  as  long  as  they  could^  hccaufe  they  had  in  detefa- 
*'  lion  thofc  human  inventions  that  were  added  to 
"  thefacrament,  which  they  held  to  he  a  pollution 
^^  thereof  And  forafmuch^  as  their  oun  pajlors 
^*  were  many  tinus  abroad,  employed  in  the  fer- 
^  vice  of  their  churches,  they  could  not  have  bap- 
'•  tifm  adminiflered  to  their  children  by  their  own 
"  rninfiers.     For  this  caife  they  kept  them  long 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  287 

■^^  from  haptifm^  which  the  popi/Ii  priejls  perceiv- 
"  ing,  took  notice  of,  and  charged  ihtni  with  the 
*'  aforefaid  Jlander,'' 

"  There  are  many  other  confeffions  of 
««  theirs,*'  fays  Dr.  Wall,  "  of  like  import, 
<•  produced  by  Perin^  Baxter^  Wills,  Sec, 
«  This  is  the  account  the  Waldenfes  give  of 
"  themfelves,  fome  of  which  feem  to  have 
*'  been  publifhed  about  200  years  ago." — 
which  would  be  300  years  from  the  prefent 
time. — Hiftory  of  Infant  Baptifm,  2d  voU 
page  221. 

Hiftorians  are  not  agreed  as  to  tbe  reafon 
or  occafion,  why  this  people  have  been  call- 
ed Waldenfes.  It  is.  however,  not  very 
material  in  the  prefent  difpute,  whether  they 
derived  their  name  from  Waldo  or  Waldusj 
the  {uppofed  founder  of  that  fe6l,  according 
to  Mofheim  and  others,  or  from  the  vallies 
of  Piedmont,  the  place  where  it  is  pretended 
they  lived,  and  from  which,  fome  fay,  they 
originated. 

You  tell  us  that  Dr.  Mofheim  fays,  '«  the 
*«  true  origin  of  that  fe6l,  which  acquired  the 
«  denominaiion  of  anabaptilts  by  adminiRer- 
<•  ing  anew  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  to  thofe 
*'  who  came  over  to  their  communion,  and 
*'  derived  that  of  Mennonites  from  the  fa- 
*'  mous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greateft 
"  part  of  their  prefent  felicity,  is  hid  in  the 
*«  remote  depths  of  antiquity,  and  is  of  con- 
^  fequence  extremely  difficult  to  be  afcer- 
«  tained."     Here  you  flop,  in  the  very  midft 


288  AN   A^pLOGY    FOU 

of  a  fentence,  and  obferve,  "  Dr.  Mofheim, 
"  as  learned  ati  hiftorian,  though  not  fo  can- 
^'  did  a  one,  as  the  fcience  of  letters  can 
"  boaft,  bears  pofiiive  teftimony  that  the 
'<*  origin  of  the  baptifts  is  hidden  in  the  re- 
«•  n^ote  depths  of  antiquity."  I  wifh,  Sir,  you 
had  been  candid  enough  to  have  ftated  the 
reafons  of  the  afore faid  difficuhy  and  uncer- 
tainty, with  refpeft  to  the  origin  of  the  ana- 
baptills,  as  meruipned  by  that  learned  hifto- 
rian,  in  the  very  words  which  immediately 
follow  your  quotation. — He  fays,  "  this  un- 
*^  certainty  will  not  appear  fur  prizing^  when  it 
*'  isconfidered,  that  this  fed  ftarted  up,  all  of 
"  a  fudden,  in  feveral  countries  at  the  fame 
"point  of  time,  under  leaders  of  different 
«'  talents  and  different  intentions^  and  at  the 
^'  very  time  when  the  firft  contefts  of  the  re- 
*'  formers  wif.h  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  drew  the 
"  attention  of  the  worlds  and  employed  the  pent  of 
*'  the  learned  in  fuch  a  manner^  as  to  render  all 
*'  other  objeEls  and  incidents  almofl  matters  of  in^ 
"  difference,'^ 

The  anabaptids  concerning  whom  Mo- 
flieim  is  here  fpeaking,  were  not  thofe  who 
appeared  in  the  twelfth  century  and  foon  dif- 
appeared.  He  had  particular  reference  to 
the  German  anabapiids,  who  made  their  ap- 
pearance in  the  fixteenth  century.  The  un- 
certainty, which  he  mentions,  refpefting  the 
origin  of  this  [t^^  does  not  relate  to  the 
ti^ne  when,   but  to   the  place  zihere   they   firft 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  289 

made  their  appearance,  and  to  the  people 
from  whom  they  defcended. 

Again,  "  It  is  difficult,"  he  fays,  "  to  de- 
"  termine,  with  certainty,  the  particular  fpot 
*'  that  gave  birth  to  that  feditious  and  pefli- 
*'  lential  feQ  of  anabaptifts,  whofe  tumultu- 
^'  ous  and  defperate  attempts  were  equally 
*'  pernicious  to  the  caufe  of  religion  and 
*'  civil  interefts  of  mankind.  Whether  they 
*«  firft  arofe  in  Switzerland^  Germany^  or  the 
"  Netherlands,  is,  as  yet,  a  matter  of  debate, 
**  whofe  decifion  is  of  no  great  importance. 
"  It  is  mod  probable,  that  feveral  perfons  of 
«^  this  odious  clafs  made  their  appearance  at 
*'  the  fame  time,  in  different  countries;  and 
*'  we  mdiy  fix  this  period  foon  after  the  dawn 
*'  of  the  reformation  in  Germany,  when 
*'  Luther  arofe  to  fet  bounds  to  the  ambition 
<•  of  Rome,"  &c. 

Dr.  Mofheim  does  not  pretend,  as  you 
have  infinuated,  "  that  the  feft  of  the  bap- 
^'  tifts  exifted  before  the  days  of  Luther  and 
"  Calvin,  and  that  they  lay  concealed  in  al- 
"  moft  all  the  countries  of  Europe,"  See, 
This,  Sir,  is  a  grofs  mifreprefentation,  pur- 
fuant  to  your  new  fangled  definition  of  a 
baptifl.  x\ccording  to  that  learned  hiftori- 
an,  as  w^e  have  already  obferved,  "  there  ex* 
*•  ifted  before  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin, 
*'  many  perfons  who  adhered  tenacioufly  to 
**  a  certain  do6lrine  or  maxim,"  relative  to 
the  purify  of  ihe  church.  Some  of  thefe 
perfons,  he  informs  us,  became  baptifts,  at 
Aa 


290  AN    APOLOGY    FCH 

the  very  commencement  of  the  reformation, 
but,  in  general,  they  did  not  deny  infant  bap- 
tifm  ;  but  have  continued  in  the  belief  and 
pra6lice  of  it,  even  to  the  prefent  day. 

It  appears  from  your  own  conceffions,  that 
if  there  were  any  baptifts  before  the  days  of 
I'Luiher  and  Calvin,  they  lay  clofely  conceal- 
ed in  their  hiding  places — fecreted  in  inacceffi- 
lie  vallies^  behind  impaffahle  7nountains.  And 
you  tell  us,  "  When  the  conteft  between  the 
"  Romanifts,  and  Luther,  and  his  aflociates, 
'•  firft  drew  the  attention  of  the  world,  the 
"  baptifts  came  out  of  their  hiding  places." 
Such  poiitive  adertions  need  pofitive  proof; 
but  you  have  produced  none.  You  have 
not  named  a  fingle  church,  or  minifter,  or 
private  individual  of  that  denomination. 
Your  pretended  evidence  is  merely  conjec- 
tural, or  of  the  negative  kind.  It  would  not 
be  admitted,  in  any  other  cafe,  even  by  your*- 
felf ;  and  in  the  prefent,  it  proves  nothing 
but  the  extreme  ftraits  and  difSculties,  to 
which  you  are  reduced.  If  is  much  more 
likely  that  thofe  perfons  fuddenly  altered 
their  opinion,  and  commenced  baptifts  at  the 
very  time  when  they  made  their  appearance. 
We  could  eafily  mention  inftances,  even  in 
our  own  country,  of  large  numbers — the 
greatcjl  part  of  a  parifii  or  town,  who  have 
been  as  fuddenly  converted,  fometimes  to 
the  methodifts'  and  fometimes  to  the  baptifts* 
principles. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  29I 

Again,  you  tell  us,  '•  tha,t  ihe  Lutherans 
•^  and  Baptilts.  as'might  have  been  expeBed, 
"  fell  out  by  the  way,  and  Calvin,  if  not  Lu- 
"  ther,  warmly  oppofed  theni."  It  is  proba- 
bly  true,  as  vou  have  (laied,  "  that  the  bap- 
''  tifts  were  difappointed  in  Luiher."  But 
you  are  greatly  miftaken,  in  fuppofing,  "  that 
'•  the  baptifts  were  favoured  with  clearer 
'•  gofpel  light,  and  wiflied  to  carry  the  refor- 
^-  maiion  further  than  Luther  was  appointed 
"  to  accomplifli."  Luther  and  CaKin  plain- 
ly forefaw  the  dreadful  cxcc(T>ts  into  which 
the  baptifls  were  about  to.  p!«inge,  and  faith- 
fully warned  them  of  the  danger-  and  happy, 
happy  for  that  people,  if  they  had  barkened 
to  their  prudeai  arid  fuend.y  advice,  Tliis 
would  hdve  prevented  them  from  commit- 
ting tbofe  vile  and  fnocking  enormities, 
which  fixed  an  everlafting  liigma  on  the  mad 
men  of  Munfter,  ai^d  deluged  Germany  with 
blood.  I  do  not,  however,  conlider  the 
modern  baptifts  implicated  in  tbofe  atrocious 
lranfa8ions,  but  view  them  as  innocent. 
My  only  intention  is,  to  corre6t  your  miflake, 
and  repel  your  defamatory  infinuations, 
with  refpecl  to  Luther  and  Calvin,  thofe  an- 
cient reformers,  who  are  not  here  to  fpeak 
in  their  own  defence. 

"  Again,  '•  we  are  told,"  you  fay,  <«  in  the 
*•  Appendix  to  Mofheim's  Church  Hidory, 
"  that  one  of  the  remarkable  things  which 
"  took  place  in  the  fecond  century,  was  the 
"  baptizing  of  infants,  ii  being  never  known 


292  AN   APOLOGY    FOR 

<'  before  as  a  chriftian  ordinance  for  them." 
I  have  examined  the  aforefaid  Appendix, 
and  can  find  no  fuch  afTertion,  nor  even  im- 
plication. You  have  ftrangely  and  very  un- 
accountably mifapprehended  and  mifrepre- 
fented  the  real  ftate  of  fa6ls.  The  learned 
authors  of  the  Appendix  have  not  faid  nor 
intimated,  that  the  baptizing  of  infants  was 
then  inflituted,  or  introduced,  or  "  that  it 
"then  took  place ;  or  that  it  was  never 
*'  before  known  as  a  chriftian  ordinance  for 
''  them."  They  diftinguifhed  very  carefully 
and  properly  between  thofe  things  which 
were  known  to  have  been  introduced  or  ejlab- 
lifiied  in  the  fecond  century,  and  thofe  things 
which  were  known  to  have  been  ufed  or prac- 
/f/e^  in  that  century.  As  for  example,  ihey 
fay  "  the  cuftom  of  praying  toward  the  eaft 
'^  was  introduced  in  the  fecond  century."  But 
''  that  infant  baptifm  and  fponfers  were  ufed 
'-  in  this  century."  If  infant  baptifm  was 
ufcd'm  the  fecond  century, it  was  undoubted- 
ly ufed  in  ihejirjl,  for  fome  of  the  Apoftles 
lived  until  the  fecond  century.  Befides, 
feveral  of  the  ancient  fathefs  exprefsly  affert,. 
«'  that  the  baptifm  of  infants  never  was  in- 
*•  troduced  or  eftablifhed  by  any  council  or 
'^  human  authority,  but  had  always  been  in 
"  ufe."  Origen,  Ambrofe,  and  Auftin,  "  af- 
"  firm  that  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  or- 
"  dered  by  the  Apoftles,  and  praftifed  in 
«•  their  time."  There  is  no  account  of  any 
cKurch  or  fociety  of  men,  who  ever  denied 


INFANT     BAPTISM,  ^93 

the  right  of  infant  baptifm,  before  the  twelfth 
century.  *'  About  the  year  eleven  hundred 
^'  and  thirly,  one  feQ  of  the  Albigenres  de- 
"  clared  againfl:  the  baptizing  of  infants,  a^ 
"  being  incapable  of  f^lvation;  but  the  main 
"  body  of  that  people,  and  alfo  the  Waldeu- 
"  [qs^  properly  fo  called,  reje6>ed  that  opin- 
"  ion  ;  and  thofe  of  then)  who  held  that  o- 
"  pinion,  foon  dwindled  away  and  difappear- 
'•  ed  ;  there  being  no  more  heard  of  hold- 
"  ing  that  opinion,  till  the  lifing  of  the  Ger- 
*•  man  baptiits  in  the  year  1522." 

Again,  you  tell  us,  *•  that  the  Mennoniies 
"  were  baptift^."  But  ihis  iQCi,  who  derived 
their  name  from  Msnnon^  a  famous  leader  a- 
mong  them,  did  not  appear  before  the  fix- 
leenth  century.  You  aifo  tell  us,  '•  thai  the 
'•  Petrobfuilians  were  baptifls.'"  This  peo- 
ple, who  derived  iheir  r.ame  from  Peter 
Bruis,  the  foundtr  and  leader  of  the  Petro- 
bruflians,  appeared  in  the  twelfth  century, 
and  were  that  f^^ci  of  the  Albigenfes,  whom- 
we  have  juit  niemioned. 

The  various  arguments  and  objeQions, 
Vv'hich  have  been  alleged,  in  order  to  dif- 
prove  the  afore faid  hiiiorical  faBs,  appear 
to  be  very  trivial  and  incoocluhve.  Some 
have  objected  to  the  afoiefaid  quotations 
from  Oiigen,  becaufe  they  are  taken  out  of 
a  Latin  tranfldtion,  the  original  Greek  not 
being  extant.  But  how  uttrearons^ble  and 
frivolous  thus  to  objeB  to  a  iranfiaiion,  which  . 
Las  all  proper  evidence  of  genuiiienefs,  v.iik- 
Aa  2 


294 


AN    APOLOGY    FOR' 


out  being  able  to  confront  it  ^\'itb  the  origi- 
nal ?  It  has  been  pretended  that  the  opinions 
and  obfervations  of  the  ancient  fathers,  con- 
cerning infant  baptifm,  feem  to  be,  in  fon^e 
inftances,  very  (Irange  and  weak  ;  but  the 
peculiarities  of  honeft  men  can  never  invali- 
date their  teftimony  refpefting  plain  matters 
of  faft.  Some  have  fuppofed  that  the  DoU' 
atifts  were  baptifts,  merely  becaufe  they  re- 
baptized  in  certain  cafes ;  but,  upon  inqui- 
ry, it  has  been  found  this  people  praftifed 
infant  baptifm,  and  only  re-baptized  thofe 
who  had  been  baptized  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  efteeraing  that  church  fo  corrupt  as 
to  render  their  baptifm  invalid.  Several 
other  fe6ls  have,  occafionally,  adopted  the 
fame,  or  a  fimilar  pradice.  In  fome  inftan> 
ces  the  Manichees  or  Quakers  have  been 
taken  for  the  bapiifts.  Mr.  Siennet  recites  a 
paffage  from  the  learned  Dr.  Allix^  concern- 
ing one  "  Gundulphus  and  his  followers, 
"  who  being  examined  by  the  BiOiop  of 
"  Cambray,at  a  fynod  in  the  year  1025,  de- 
*'  nied  that  baptifm  was  profitable  to  inflints, 
"  and  dated  their  reafons  againft  baptizing 
'*  iheni."  Here  he  flopped,  omitting  that 
pa^i  of  their  confeffion  which  did  not  fuit 
his  purpofe,  viz.  «' Thefe  men,  at  the  fame 
*'•  examinaiion,  being  further  interrogated, 
*•  confeffed  that  they  thought  water  baptifm 
"  of  no  ufe  or  importance  to  any  one,  infant 
*•  or  adult."  Dr.  Wall  corre61ed  this  unfair- 
ncii.  and  paniaiity  of  Mr.  Stennet.     But  ftill 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  295 

Dr.  Gill,  as  Mr.  Clark  informs  us,  perfifted 
in  repealing  the  fanne  mutilated  quotation  ; 
and  in  the  following  vaunting  manner,  viz. 
*'  So  we  have  teftimonies,  that  paedobaptifm 
"  was  oppofed  500  years  before  the  affair  of 
"  Munfter." — Five  hundred  years  before 
the  affair  of  Munfter  1  That  is,  in  the  elev- 
enth century.  And  by  whom  was  infant 
baptifm  then  oppofed  ?  Not  by  the  baptiftsj 
it  feems,  but  by  the  quakers,  who  renounced 
and  derided  all  water-bapiifm. 

Some  of  the  ancient  writers  have  not  dif- 
tinguifhed,  with  fufficient  accuracy,  the  fev- 
eral  fefts,  who  entertained  different  opinions 
concerning  the  rite  of  baptifm.  The  qua- 
kers,  who  denied  the  ufe  of  water-baptifm, 
with  refpeB  to  adults  as  well  as  infants,  and 
ihofe  fe6ls  who  re-baptized  in  certain  cafes, 
although  they  did  not  deny  or  negle6l  infant 
baptifm,  have  fometimes  been  incautioufly 
called  by  the  common  name  of  anabaptifts. 
Some  learned  men  have,  accordingly,  fup- 
pofed  that  the  PetroKruflians  were  Manichees 
or  Quakers;  and  that  they  never  avowed 
the  prefent  baptifts'  principles.  This  how- 
ever is  a  matter  of  but  little  importance. 
The  Petrobruflians  w^ere  a  fmall,  inconfider- 
able  feQ,  They  foon  dwindled  and  difap- 
peared. 

Again,  Dr.  Gill  and  fome  other  bapiift 
writers  very  earneftly  contend,  that  the  an- 
cient Waldenfes  baptized  adults  and  denied 
infant  baptifm.      This  opinion  has  been  de- 


£^6  AN    APOLOGY    TOR 

dared  to  be  a  mere  "  chimera  or  groiindleri 
'•  fiQion,"  by  Mr.  Clark,  formerly  of  Salem, 
and  Mr.  Dickinfon,  formerly  Preftdeni  of 
New-Jerfey  College,  even  after  they  had  ex- 
amined the  hiftory  of  that  people  \vith  the 
greateft  care  and  diligence.  Prefident  Ed- 
wards, alfo,  explored  the  vallies  of  Piedmont 
with  the  utmoft  fcrutiny,  but  found  no  bap- 
tifts  there.  Dr.  Wall  fays,  "  no  perfon  who 
**  has  written  the  hiftory  of  the  Waldenfes 
"  hath  reprefented  them  as  denying  infant 
•'  bapiifm."  We  have  already  hinied  at  the 
occafion  of  the  aforefaid  miftake.  The  Wal- 
denfes were  very  zealoufly  oppofed  to  the 
corruptions  and  fuperftitious  ceremonies  of 
the  Romifh  Church,  and  unwilling  to  have 
their  children  baptized  by  a  popifh  prieftc 
The  papids,  of  courfe,  became  their  ene- 
mies ;  and  fome  of  their  writers  reprefented 
them  as  being  hereiicks,  and  among  oiher 
things  charged  them  with  the  herefy  of  de- 
nying infant  baptifm.  But  the  Waldenfes, 
who  were  certainly  heft  acquainted  with  their 
own  principles  and  praftice,  have  difclaimed 
the  charge  in  the  moft  unequivocal  manner; 
declaring  that  they  did  baptize  their  infants, 
and  proving  from  ancient  records,  thai  their 
forefathers  had  always  praBifed  infant  bap- 
tifm. 

It  is  pretended,  that  fome  great  and  learn- 
ed men,  who  were  in  the  practice  of  bapti- 
zing infants,  have  had  their  doubts  with  ref- 
peQ  to  the  propriety  of  infant  bapiifm.     If 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  297 

this  be  true,  it  is  a  circumftance  of  very  lit- 
tle importance  in  the  prefent  diTpute.  Eve- 
ry doQrine  of  the  gofpel  has  been  doubted 
or  denied  by  individuals;  but  other  perfons, 
who  were  better  informed,  have  believed 
them  fully,  even  without  any  doubling  at  all. 
Mr.  Whijlon  and  a  few  others  were  ready 
to  Imagine,  that  the  ancient  fathers,  when 
fpeaking  concerning  the  baptizing  of  infants, 
had  not  reference  to  infants  in  days  or 
years,  but  to  infants  in  knowledge  and  faith. 
This  pretended  dlfcovery  appears  to  be  the 
refult  of  inextricable  difficulty.  Thefe  men 
felt  the  dilemma  in  which  they  were  invol- 
ved ;  and  were  convinced  that  their  notions 
of  baptifm  mud  be  relinquifhed,  unlefs  they 
could  find  out,  that  all  the  fathers,  in  the 
primitive  ages,  ufed  the  word  infants  in  a 
metapliorical  fenfe  ;  meaning  thereby  young 
people,  or  ignorant  old  people.  This  abfurd 
opinion  appears  to  have  been  their  only  al- 
ternative ;  and  yet  the  abfurdity  is  fo  evi- 
dent ihar,  inftead  of  difproving  the  right  of 
infant  baptifm,  it  affords  a  very  ftrong,  pre- 
fumptive  argument  in  its  favour.  Confult 
the  ancient  fathers  ;  confult  ecclefiaflical 
hiftory,  and  you  will  find  full  and  clear 
proof  that  infant  baptifm  was  pra6lifed  from 
the  beginning  of  chriftianity;  and  that  the 
pra6lice  did  continue  in  the  univerfal  church 
without  interruption  or  exception,  until  a- 
bout  the  year  eleven  hundred  and  thirty  af- 
ter Chrift,     It  might  pofiibly  have  been  op- 


298  AN    APOLOGY    FOR 

pofed  by  a  few  individuals;  but  previous  to 
the  aforefaid  period,  we  have  no  evidence 
from  the  writings  and  monuments  of  antiqui- 
ty, that  any  body  of  profefTed  chriftians  or 
church,  ever  did  deny  the  validity  or  law- 
fulnefs  of  infant  baptiim.  That  fed  called 
Petrobruffians  was  not  numerous.  Their 
number,  we  have  fhown,  foon  diminifli«,d, 
and  ihe>  became  extinB;  fo  that  there  was 
really  no  great,  lafting  oppofiiion  to  infant 
baptilm,  b-fore  the  fixteenth  century. 

You  will  now  luffer  me  to  propofe  a  fe\v 
queftions,  for  your  impartial  confideration. 
You  have  faid,  "  that  the  highly  interefling 
''  conieniion,  at  the  prefeni,  is,  who  Ihall 
'*  reigf)  over  us,  and  v;ho  fliail  give  us  laws,. 
'•  Chrid  or  Aniichriit  ?"  Our  pra8ice,  with 
refpeft  to  bapiifm,  you  tell  us,  *' is  an  ordi- 
nance of  Antichrilt,  derived  from  ghoflly 
Popa^  ajod  the  moiher  of  harlots" — and  rep- 
refent  thofe  minifters,  who  attempt  to  pre- 
vent the  baptifts  from  making  divifions  and 
feparaiions  among  the  people  of  their  charge, 
by  warning  them  of  their  danger,  "  as  afting 
''  in  this  matter  the  part,  of  the  oJd  fcribes, 
V  pharifees,  and  hypocrites,  who  would  not 
*^  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  themfelves, 
^'  but  hindered  thofe  who  were  entering." 
You  feem,  however,  to  be  aware,  that  thq 
fentence  is  fomewbat  fevere,  and  therefore 
endeavour  to  qualify  the  expreflion  by  lay- 
ing, "I  by  no  means  fuppole,  that  all  who 
^>  have  done  thus  are  indeed  hypocrites,  favc? 


1NFA3SJT    BAPTISM, 


99 


<-  in  this  parlicular."  But,  Sir,  is  not  he  zvho 
xvilfully  offends  in  one  point  guilty  of  all  ?  Are 
the  aforefaid  and  finrilar  declarations  confift- 
ent  with  civility  or  even  decency  ?  Are  they 
confiftent  with  that  candour  and  charity 
which  become  a  profefTed  chriftian  and  efpe- 
cially  a  chriftian  minifter  ?  Who  art  thou  that 
judgcji  another  mans  fervant  ?  Why  dojl  thou 
judge^  and  why  dofl  thoufet  at  naught  thy  brother  ? 
1  will  not  undertake  to  anfwer  thefe  quef- 
tions,  but  fubmit  them  to  your  own  reflec- 
tions. Does  not  our  common  Lord  and  Maf- 
ter  claim  the  exclufive  right  of  judging  his 
own  fervants  ?  I  will  therefore  clofe  with 
ihofe  awful  words,  wirh  which  you  concluded 
your  exhortation  to  your  fathers  and  breth- 
ren in  the  miniftry,  Szc.  «  I  pray  you  re- 
member on^  thing;  with  what  judgment  ye 
judge  ye  fhall  be  judged." 

Yours,   fincerely, 

JOHN  REED, 


APPENDIX. 


Q 


UESTION.  Can  any  good  reafon  he  given^ 
why  the  mode  of  baptizing  Jhould  not  have  been 
decided  and  fixed  by  Chriji  ? 

Anfxver.  The  reafon  undoubtedly  was 
this,  that  individuals  might  be  at  liberty  to 
adopt  fuch  a  mode  as  would  be  moft  agreea- 
ble to  their  wifiies,  and  beft  fuited  to  their 
circumftances.  The  indulgence,  therefore, 
appears  to  difcover  great  wifdom  and  good- 
nefs;  efpecially  when  we  confider  the  differ- 
ent conditions  and  prejudices  of  mankind — 
and  ihat  baptifm  was  praclifed  before  our 
Saviour's  time  as  well  as  fince.  in  feveral 
wodes  and  forms,  both  by  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles. 

Quefiion.  Can  we  fuppofe  that  if  Chrijl  and 
his  Apijlies  had  approved  of  fpr inkling  as-  being 
a  lawful  and  valid  viode  of  baptizing,  any  of  the 
p'-imitive  converts  to  chriflianity  vjould have  pre- 
ferred a  total  dipping  ? 

Anfzver.  The  fuppofition  is  perfectly  natu- 
ral,  if  we  confider  the  ignorance  and  fuper- 
(lition  of  ancient  times.  It  was  not  in  the 
power  of  die  Apoftles  to  perluade  the  be- 
lieving Jews  to  \^.y  afide  the  g/ievous  rite  of 
Bb 


302  APPENDIX. 

circumcifion,  and  burdenfome  cuftoms  of 
Mofes.     Our  Saviour  faid  to  his   difciples, 

I  have  many  things  to  fay  unto  you^  hut  ye  cannot 
hear  them  now.  Some  perfons,  in  every  age 
and  country,  have  been  difpofed  to  defpife 
fmall  things — and  fuch  as  could  be  obtained 
without  any  expenfe  or  difficulty.  If  Elifha 
had  bidden  the  Syrian  Leper  to-  do  fome 
great  and  expenfive  thing,  he  would  have 
done  it  with  the  utmoft  readinefs.  But  he 
difdained  the  cheap  and  eafy  remedy  pro- 
pofed,  and  was  greatly  difpleafed  with  the 
prophet.  When  our  Saviour  wafhed  hisdif- 
ciple's  feet,  Peter,  at  firft,  refufed  ;  but  being 
told  that  wafhing  was  indifpenfably  requifite, 
he  infifted  upon  being  wafiied  all  over; — not 
my  feet  only^  but  my  hands  and  my  head, — 
And  thus  fome  perfons  would  probably  have 
thought  in.  rerpe6l  to  the  chriftian  bapiifm  ; 
- — that  there  was  not  fufficient  fignlficancy 
or  validity  in  fprinkling  or  pouring  a  few 
drops  of  water ;  and  confequently,  that  a 
total  immerfion  appeared  to  be  neceffary,  or 
at  leaft  the  moft  eligible  mode    of  baptizing. 

Ouejlion.     Was  not  Chrijl  baptized  by  ivimer- 

Jion  ?    and  is  it  not  a  duty  incumbent  on  us  all  to 

deny  our/elves,  and  take  up  the  crofs,  and  follow 

him  whitherfoever  he  goeth^  even  into  the  watery 

grave  ? 

An  fiver.  We  have  already  fhown,  tbat 
Cli rift's  bapfifm  was  his  confecration  to  the 
fac^^rdotal  office,  and  not  intended  as  an  ex- 
ample.    It  was,  however,   undoubtedly  per- 


APPENDIX,  303 

formed  by  fprinkling,  as  the  law  of  Mofes 
exprefsly  required.  We  are  no  where  told 
he  went  into  the  water;  and  although  it  is 
once  laid  in  our  tranflation  that  Chrift  came 
up  6ut  of  the  water ^  this  manner  of  exprelTion 
does  not  prove  he  was  dipped.  Befides,  we 
have  fhown  that  the  original  vvord^j/?/?,  'which 
is  here  rendered  M^^'c/^iTtorc  •  properly  and 
commonly  (igni fie sy*row,  our  tranflators  thcni- 
Jelves  being  judges.  For  in  the  five  firft  books 
oi  the  New  Teftament,  they  have  iranflaied 
the  Greek,  word  apo.,  into  the  Englifh  'word 
Jrom^  93.  tii^nes  oftencr  ihan  .they  have  tranf- 
lated  It  into  the  Engiifli  words  oji,'  cf.  This 
wonderful  argument  in  favour  of  immerfion, 
when  weighed-  in  the  balance  of  truth  is 
foand  wanting— lighter  than  vanity.  How 
(Irange  that  it  fhould  ever  influence  any  per- 
fons  to  be  dipped,  and  efpecially  from  among 
thofe  who  have  bcien  baptized,  in  the  name 
of  the  facred  Trinity,  by  affufion  or  fprink- 
ling I  And  ftill  more  llrange,  that  baptift 
miniftersv.themfelves,  fliould  appear  to  place 
fo  much  ftrefs  upon  it !— And  always  men- 
lion  it  on  baptizing  occafions  !  1  hope  ihey 
are. actuated  by  better  motives  than  the  con- 
fideraiion  of  its  being  popular  and  effica- 
cious. . 

Quejiion,  Bui  is  not  the  mode  oj flungivg^  a 
arofs — an  injlance  of  great  Jtlf  denial  with  which 
wc  ought  to  comphrin  obedience  to  the  aitthcrity  of 
Chrifi  ? 


304  APPENDIX. 

Anfwer,  Chrift  has  required  baptifm,  but 
not  dipping.  The  mode  oF  baptizing,  we 
have  (hown,  is  left  unde'cided.  If  any  per- 
fon,  who  has  never  been  bap;ized,  ihould 
prefer  being  dipped,  we  do  not  objeQ.  Our 
objeftion  lies  againft  the  pra8ice  of  re-bap- 
tizing, Gr  of^  making  the  mode  efTential  to 
the  ordinance  of  naLMiriP.  This  we  view  as 
the  effe6t  of  fuperftition,  and  noC  of  religion. 
Chrift  has  required  us  to  deny  ourjtlves  of  all 
ungcdlinefs^  and  of  every  worldly  lu/l^  and  take 
up  the  crofs  daily.  But  every  crofs  is  not  the 
crofs  of  Chrift.  There  are  many  inftances 
cf  felf  denial  which  he  has  not  required. 
The  worfhippers  of  Baal  denied  themfelve.', 
when  they  cryed  aloud  and  leaped  upon  the  allar^ 
cutting  their  flejli  with  knives  and  lancets^  from 
morning  till  evening.  The  fuperftitious  pa- 
pifts  deny  themfelves  when  they  turn  nuns 
and  hermits;  and  in  enduring  and  fufFer- 
iog  a  great  variety  of  penance  and  bodi- 
ly mortifications.  Such  kind  of  fervices,. 
the  Apoftle  tells  us  in  Colof.  2d  chap. 
18th  and  33d  verfes,  have  indeed  a  fhew  of 
lAiifdora  in  will  worfJiip^  and  a  volnntary  humility^ 
and  negleHing  the  body  ;  or  (as  it  might  have 
been  rendered)  in  puniftiing  or  not  fparing 
the  body.  But  thefe  are  inftances  of  feif- 
denial  which  Chrift  has  not  required.  There 
is  therefore  no  obedience  or  virtue  in  them. 

Quejlion.     Are  not  thofe  perfons  who  praElife 
hapuzing  in  the  mode  of  fprinkling^  ranlifs.   m 


APPhNDlX.  305 

the  Jamcftnfc  that  they  arc  bapfJJls  that  piaaife 
dipping  ? 

Anfcier.  They  who  praQife  fprinkling  are 
rantijls,  in  the  fame  fell fe  thai  thofe  peiToas 
are  di'ptijls,  who  praQife  dipping;  for  the 
Englifh  woid  dip^  is  derived  from  the  Greek 
word  dupto^  which  figaifi'^s  to  dip  and  noth- 
ing elfe. 

Que/lion,  '  Why  did  not  our  tranjlators  render 
the  original  word  rantizo^  7'antize.  as  they  kav€ 
rendered  the  original  ward  baptize^  baptize  ? 

An/ever.  Rantizo  fignifiei  to  fprinkle,  ex- 
clufively.  Oar  tranflators  have  therefore 
done  right  ia  trariflating  it.  Bat  the  word 
baplizoj  admits  of  various  fignificaiions ;  it 
was  accordingly  proper,  that  they  fiiouid 
tranfcribe  it.  It  belongs  to  expofitors,  and 
not  to  tranflators,  to  afcertain  and  fix  the 
meaning  of  doabifal  words. 

QiLcfiion.  Do  not  the  Greek  churches  p'aclife , 
dipping  ;  anJ  is  it  not  reafonable  to  fuppcfc  that 
ih^y  bejl  itnderjiand  their  own  language  ? 

Anfwer.  The  Greek  churches  univ^erfally 
praBife  infant  baptifm  ;  ar.d  ihey  commonly 
dip  their  infants,  but  noi  iu variably,  for  the 
mode  of  baptizing  is  not  confidercd  by  them 
aseflential.  Befides,  ihe  ancient  Grt^k  lan- 
guage has  for  a  long  time  been  a  dead  lan- 
guage. Although  underfiood  by  the  learn- 
ed of  all  nations,  there  is  no  particular  lia- 
tion,  at  ihe  prcfent  day,  that  undcrlia.idi  and 
ufcb  it*  •      •. 

B  L  2 


306  APPENDIX. 

Quefiion.     Is  not  the  mt)de  of  baptizing  hy  of- 
Jufion  or  fprinkling.   preferred   and  adopttd  by 
fame  perfons^  on  the  account  of  its  being  mojl  con- 
venient ? 

Anjwtr.  Baptifm  is  but  a  ritual  inftitution 
of  a  ceremonial  kind.  St.  Paul  thanked  God 
that  he  had  baptized  fo  few  ;  Jor  Chrijl  did 
not  fend  him  to  baptize^  but  to  preach;  which 
was  a  bufinefs  of  more  importance.  Too 
much  ftrefs  may  certainly  be  laid  upon  the 
mode  of  baptifm,  and  even  upon  the  ordi 
nance  itfelf.  But  ftill  the  ordinance  is  very 
important,  and  muft  not  be  defpifed  and  neg- 
le6ied^by  any.  The  conveniency  of  pour- 
ing and  fprinkling  is  certainly  no  objeBion. 
It  muft  be  confidered  as  a  very  good  argu- 
ment in  their  favour;  efpecially  when  com- 
pared with  dipping  which,  in  fome  cafes, 
cannot  be  praclifed,  and  in  many  others 
would  be  very  inconvenient  and  difficult. 
Chrift  haih  no  where  reftrifted  us  to  the 
mode  of  dipping.  A  reftriQion,  therefore, 
of  this  nature  appears  to  be  as  unreafonabie 
as  it  is  unfcripiural. 

Why  fliould  that  liberty  be  retrenched 
which  hath  been  allowed  us  by  our  common 
Saviour  ?  Why  fhould  that  bapiifm  be  con- 
fidered and  treated  as  a  mere  nullity  or 
mockery,  which  God  has  fo  often  owned  and 
bleffcd  ?  Why  deprive  weak,  (ick,  dying 
fhriiiians,  of  that  mercy  which  hath  been  in- 
dulged them  by  their  Creator  and  Redeem- 
er ?     is  CO  allowance  tc   be  made  for  coun- 


APPENDIX.  307 

tries  and  climates — for  places,  and  times, 
and  feafons,  and  conditions  ?  1  know  it  is 
pretended  by  fome  that  dipping  is  always 
ikfe — that  it  never  endangers  the  health  or 
life,  however  difordered  the  perfon,  or  fee- 
ble his  conftitution,  or  cold  the  feafon.  It 
is  always  proper  to  truft  God.  But  thou  JJi alt 
not  tempt  tht  Lord  thy  God,  Thou  (halt  not 
ca/l  thyfelf  dozvn  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple^ 
expcEling  that  he  will  give  his  angels  charge  to 
bear  thee  up  in  their  hands,  and  prevent  all 
harm.  Befides,  in  ihofe  northern  regions, 
where  bathing  is  feldom  praQifed,  baptifm 
by  immerfion  frequently  appears  fliocking  to 
perfons  of  a  timorous  make,  and  efpecially 
to  females.  We  are  exhorted  to  attend  upon 
the  Lord  without  dijlraciicn.  But  is  it  in  the 
power  of  every  perfon  to  receive  baptifm  by 
immerfion,  "  without  having  his  thoughts 
<'  deranged,  his  mind  agitated,  and  his  fpirits 
«^  fluttered  fo  as  to  render  him  incapable  of 
*'  thofe  fedate  and  devotional  exercifes, 
'•  which  ought  always  to  accompany  ihis 
«'  folemn  ordinance  ?" — Shall  the  opinion 
and  praftice  of  the  baptifts  be  made  a  rule 
and  meafure  for  every  one  ?  And  muft  all 
the  churches  and  all  the  chriftiaiis  in  the 
world,  who  cannot  conform  with  them  here- 
in, be  unchurched  and  excomm.unicated,  for 
their  non-conformity  ?  It  is  undeniably  evi- 
dent that  many  inltances  will  occur  on  the 
account  of  ficknefs.  the  inclemency  of  the 
weather  and  fcarcity  of  water,  in  which  bap- 


308  APPENDIX, 

tifai  by  immerfion  would  be  impra6licable  of 
dangerous;  and  of  courfe,  a  variety  of 
doubtful,  perplexing  cafes.  Who  can  tell 
\fhat  kind  of  diforder — .what  degree  of  in- 
firmity— what  feverity  of  weather  would  af- 
ford a  fufficient  excufe  for  neglefting  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm  ?  How  long  may  a 
perfon  wait  for  the  perfe6l  reftoraiion  of 
health — for  a  warm  feafon — for  a  pleafant' 
day — for  rain  in  a  dry  time,  to  raife  the 
ftreams  ?  Or  how  far  may  an  individual  or  a 
congregation  lawfully  go  upon  the  fabbath, 
in  order  to  find  a  place  of  water,  fuitable  for 
baptifm,  according  to  the  prefent  mode  of 
dipping  ?  Thefe  and  fimilar  queftions  will 
frequently  happen,  which  the  moft  Toilful 
phyfician  or  cafuift  can  never  folve.  We 
plainly  fee  the  goodnefs  and  wifdom  of  God, 
in  leaving  the  mode  of  baptizing  undeter- 
mined. V/e  may  fay  of  baptifm,  as  our  Sa- 
viour faid  concerning  the  fabbath,  it  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  baptifm. 
The  Old  Teftament  yoke  was  grievous  and 
heavy,  but  Ckriji's yoke  is  eafy  and  his  biirdtn 
light.  He  prefers  mercy  to  the  moft  coftly 
and  painful  facrifices;  and  has  accordingly 
allowed  us  to  adept  that  mode  of  baptizing, 
which  convenience,  expediency,  or  the 
emergency  of  the  cafe  might  diBate,  pro- 
vided this  religious  {^twict  bt  performed  de- 
cently and  in  order, 

Ouejlion.     In  what  Jtnfe  do  baptized  infants 
or  diildrcn  hdong  to  tht  Church  of  Chriji  ? 


AFPEN^DIX.  309 

Anfvjer,  BeFore  any  queRion  can  be  in- 
telligibly folved,  it  muft  be  correBly  under- 
ftood.  It  is  therefore  neceffary,  in  the  firft 
place,  to  afcertain,  accurately,  what  is  here 
meant  by  the  Church  ;  for  this  word  is  fre- 
quently ufed  in  different  fenfes — fometimes 
it  is  called  the  invifibk  church — fometimes-thc 
univerfaL  catholick  or  general  churchy  and  fome- 
times  a  church. 

By  the  invifihk  church  is  intended  all  ihofe 
perfons  who  now  are,  or  fliali  be  hereafter, 
fanftified,  juftified  and  glorified,  whether  in- 
fants or  adults,  baptized  or  unbaptized — the 
whole  family  of  Chrift — an  innumerable  com- 
pany of  angels  and  men.  This  is  the  invili- 
ble  church  of  ihe  firft  born.  But  fecret 
ihinas  belong  to  God.  No  being,  but  the 
omnifcient  Tehovah>,  knows,  certainly  what 
individuals  belong  10  his  invifible  church. 

Again,  by  the  catholick  or  general  churchy 
we  m.ean  thofe  perlons  in  all  nations  and 
a<Tes,  whether  adults  or  infants,  v;ho  have 
been  regularly  admitted  into  the  vifible 
church  or  covenant,  by  receiving  the  exter- 
nal, appointed  {ign  and  token  of  initiation 
and  memberfhip.  The  general,  vifible  church 
includes  all  thofe  perfons  who  have  been 
thus  vifibly  dedicated  to  God  through  Chiift, 
and  have  not  cut  themselves  off  from  this 
vifible  relation  to  him,  by  their  open  infidel- 
Hy  or  wMckednefs. 

Again,  by  a  church  we  underfiand  any  num- 
ber of  perfons,  belonging  to  the  general^  vifi^ 


310  APPENDIX* 

hie  churchy  who  have  or  (hall  form  thcmfelves 
into  a  religious  y(?a'f()'5  by  voluntary  aflbcia- 
tion.  or  by  confcnting  to  a  mutual  covenant 
and  articles  of  agreement,  for  the  purpofes 
of  chriftian  feliowfhip,  eommunion  and  dif- 
cipline.  Churches  thus  formed  and  eftab- 
lifhed,  ought  to  be,  and  commonly  are,  in  a 
ftate  of  chriftian  feilowfhip  and  communion 
with  each  other*  It  is  m.thefe  particular 
churches  that  chriftian  difcipline  is  exercifed, 
and  chriftian  communion,  at  ih«  Lord's  ta- 
blej  is  enjoyed.  Piofeffedchriftians,  of  ev- 
ery denomination,  who  belong  to  a  particu- 
lar church,  are  members  alfo  of  the  general 
church.  But  every  member  of  the  general 
church  does  not  belong  to  a  particular 
church. 

The  primitive  chriftjans  gave  themfelves 
up  to  God  ;  and  alfo  to  each  other.  Thefe 
were  two  diftinQ  a8s,  and  had  reference  to 
two  diftinft  covenants  or  churches.  In  the 
firft  itjftance,  they  gave  themfelves  up  to 
God  in  baptifm.  They  were  not  baptized, 
purfuanl  to  the  vote  or  order  of  diwy  particu- 
lar churchy  but  by  that  authority  which  Chrill 
committed  to  the  Apoftles  and  to  their  fuc- 
ceffors.  They  were  by  baptifm  conftituted 
regular,  vifible  members  of  the  vifible,  gen- 
eral church.  After  this,  they  gave  them- 
felves up  to  each  other.  By  mutual  confent 
and  agreement,  they  became  members  of  a 
particular    church,  or    rather    of    differentj 


APPENDIX.  311 

particular  churches,  according  to  their  local 
circumftances. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  folve  the  origi- 
nal queftion.  Although  infant  children  are 
not  capable  of  that  voluntary  confent  and 
mutual  agreement,  which  are  requifite  to 
conftitute  them  complete  members  o^  a  par- 
ticular churchy  and  qualify  them  to  participate 
in  the  difcipline  and  communion  of  faid 
church,  yet  they  are  capable  of  being 
conftituted  members  of  the  general  church.  IF 
believing  parents  are  not  authorized  to  fub- 
jecl  their  infant  children  to  the  regulations 
and  jurifdiQion  of  a  particular  churchy  they 
certainly  have  a  right  to  devote  and  give 
them  up  to  God  according  to  the  tenour  of 
his  everlafting  covenant.  Children  thus  de- 
voted to  God  by  baptifm,  the  prefent  ap- 
pointed feal  and  token  of  his  gracious  cove^ 
nant,  are  regular  members  of  Chrift's  univer- 
sal, vifible  church. 

Qiiejiion.  Are  ike  infant  children  of  believing 
parents  born  members  of  the  churchy  and  conje- 
quently  have  a  right  as  members  to  'be  baptized^  or 
IS  their  memherjnp  conftituted  by  baptijm  ? 

Anfwer.  A  right  to  church  memberfhip 
is  one  thing,  and  regular  admifTion  as  mem- 
bers into  the  vifible.  general  church  ofChrift, 
is  another.  The  children  of  believers  are 
to  be  conlidered  as  heirs  of  the  proPxiile  or 
covenant.  Memberfhip  is  their  birth-right : 
ihey  are  accordingly  to  be  admitted,  by  bap- 
tifm,  as  rightful  members.       But   the  vifible 


3^2  APPENDIX. 

covenant  and  its  vifible  feal,  in  refpeO:  to 
them,  muft  go  together  and  not  be  feparated. 
It  is  this  publick,  vifible  feal  or  token,  which 
principally  conftitutes  the  publicity  and  vifi- 
bility  of  the  covenant  and  of  memberfhip ; 
fo  that  no  unbaptized  perfon  can  be  a  regu- 
lar, vifible  member  of  the  vifible  covenant, 
or  vifible.  general  church  of  Chrift.  He  may 
have  a  right  to  be  baptized,  and  in  that  way 
become  a  vifible,  regular  member;  but  it  is 
baptifm  which  principally  conftitutes  regu- 
lar, vifible  memberfhip. 

Qu^ftion.  h  it  certain^  that  the  aiKient  Jf- 
raelkes  and  Jr^wi/Ji  nation  did  belong  to  the  gene- 
ral churck  of  God? 

Anjwer.  The  word  church,  is  not  ufed  in 
the  old  teftarnent;  but  St.  Stephen,  in  the 
6ih  chapiei  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles,  ex- 
prefsly  declares,  that  Mofes  was  in  the  church 
in  the  uildcrnefs.  The  Ifraelites  and  Jews  are 
frequently  called  ihe  people  of  God- — the  peo- 
ple of  his  covenant.  A  great  variety  x)f  ex- 
preftions  are  ufed  which,  in  the  language  of 
Moles  and  the  Prophets,  are  of  the  fame  or 
fimilar  fignification  with  the  word  church,  as 
mentioned  in  the  new  teilament.  Befides, 
all  the  males^  adults^  and  irjants^  who  rcpre- 
fented  the  whole  nation,  were  circumciled. 
And  circumcifion.  we  are  plainly  told,  was 
the  feal^nd  token  of  the  everlalting  covenant. 
The  Apoftle  alfo  fays,  they  uere  all  under  the 
cloud  and  all  paffed  through  the  fea^  end  ivere  all 
baptized  vnto  Mofts ;   that  is,  into  the  religion 


APPENDIX.  313 

t)f  Mofes,  who  was  a  remarkable  type  of 
Chrilt ; — the  whole  nation,  confiding  of  tnen, 
women  and  children^  were  baptized  by  /Ad  cloudy 
and  by  the  fea.  Thus  the  covenant  was  re- 
newed, and  their  church  memberfhip  con- 
firmed by  baptifm. 

Qiiejlion,  If  the  infant  children  of  believers 
are  to  be  baptized  hecaufe  the  children  of  Ifrael 
were  circii7ncifed,  zvhy  ffiould  not  they  partake  of 
the  Lord's  flipper^  as  their  children  partook  of  the 
paffover  ? 

Anfioer.     The  pafTover   was  inftituted,  in 
order   to   perpetuate    the    memory   of  their 
miraculous  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bond- 
age.      The    law    of    Mofes    therefore    pre- 
fcribed,  that  zohen  they  were  coine  irJo  the  land 
which  God  would  give  them^  all  their  males  fnoidd 
appear  before  him,  annually,  in  order  to  keep 
the   paffover,  in   the  place  appointed  for  faid 
purpofe.     The  fame  law  provided   that  they 
fliould   not  appear  empty ^  but   every  one  bring  a 
gift  in  his  hand.      Mr.  Pook,  Bp.  Patrick,  and 
othitr  writers,  learned  in  the  Jewifii  laws  and 
cufiom'^,  fay,  that  when  children  were  twelve 
years  old,  their    parents  confidered    them  as 
capable    of  prefenting   the    aforefaid   gift  or 
offcriijg — Ciipahk  alfo  of  enqii-iring  and  of  under - 
(landing  rchat  W2.)  want  by  this  fer vice,  and  by 
the   pafji;er ;    they    therefore    now    brought 
ihem  10    ib.c  temple,  to  obferve    the  feflival. 
Luke  according!)   teils  us,  ••  that  ilie  parents 
•^*  of  J':(ii>,  wciu  up  every  year  to  Jerufalem, 
•*  rii    ilie    fcd?l    of  the  paffAvtrr  ■   aidv^h-ri  \z 
Cc 


314  APPENDIX. 

"  was  twclvt  yean  old^  they  went  up  (with  himj 
'^  ajttr  the,  cujlom  ofthefeoji''  It  is  not  faid 
nor  intimated,  that  their  fon  ever  attended 
before.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  firft  time. 
Being  now  twelve  years  old,  he  accompanied 
his  parents  to  the  feftival,  in  conformity  to 
the  ufual  cuftom. — At  this  age,  many  are 
certainly  capable  of  underftanding  the  na- 
ture and  defign  of  the  Lord's  fupper,  and  of 
being  benefitted  by  that  facrainent.  We 
ought  however  to  recolleQ  that  the  pafTover 
was  one  of  the  Mofaic  rites,  and  appointed 
more  than  four  hundred  years  after  the  Abra« 
hamic  covenant ;  and  although  this  ancient 
rite  is  fuperfeded  by  the  Gofpel,  it  has  not 
difannulkd  the  cQ;ucnant»  Infant  children  are 
flill  capable  of  being  members  of  the  cove- 
nanf,  ov  general  church  of  Chrijl^  although  not 
qualified  to  participate  in  the  difcipline  and 
communion  of  a  particular  church. 

Quejlion.  Do  not  the  fcriptwes  require  faithy 
and  repentance,  and  the  anfwer  of  a  good  con- 
fcience,  as  requifite  to  haptifm  ?  Are  not  infants 
incapable  of  thefe  chriftian  graces,,  and  confequcnt- 
ly  dif qualified  for  that  ordinance  ? 

Anfwer,  I  have  heard  much  faid  con- 
cerning believer  s  baptifm — believe  and  he  bap- 
tized. &c,  but  never  happened  to  fee  thefe 
expreffions  in  the  facred  fcriptures.  Our 
Saviour  faid  to  his  difciples,  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  fJiall  he  faved.  Here  faith  is 
placed  before  baptifm,  and  both  are  mention- 
ed conjointly  as  requifite  to  falvation.     Our 


APPENDIX,  315 

Saviour  faid  to  Nicodemu?,  except  a  man  he 
horn  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Here  baphjvi  is  placed  heforc 
faith,  and  both  mentioned  conjointly  as  re- 
quifite  For  admifTion  into  Chrift's  kingdom. 
A  proFefTion  of  faith,  See.  was  certainly  re- 
quired,  by  the  Apoftles,  of  adults^  in  order 
10  their  bapiifin,  and  is  ftill  reqiiifite,  and 
was  equally  neceH'arv^  for  the  circunricihon 
and  bapiifm  ofadulc  perfons  or  prO'^elytes, 
under  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  Mofaic 
dirpenfation.  With  rf^fpe^  to  this  matter, 
there  is  no  difpute.  We  and  the  baptifls  are 
entirely  agreed.  Various  inflances  are  re- 
corded, in  the  new  teflamen*,  of  persons  who 
profeded  their  faiih  and  were  baptized.  But 
a  thoufand  fuch  examples  of  adult  baptifm 
can  never  difprove  the  right  of  infant  bap- 
tifm, or  furnifh  a  fingle  argument  againfl  it. 
Cannot  adult  believers  be  admitted  unlefs 
infants  are  rejeQed  ?  Is  there  not  room  e- 
nough  in  God's  gracious  covenant  and, gen- 
eral church  for  both  ?  for  believing  parents 
and  their  children  ?  The  aforefaid  objec- 
tion, like  a  vapour  beheld  at  a  didance, 
looks  as  if  there  might  be  fomething  in  it, 
but  upon  a  nearer  view,  is  found  to  be 
wholly  deftiiute  of  folidity  and  fubflance, 
as  we  have  already  fhown,  and  fliall  have 
occafion  to  fhow  more  fully  hereafter. 

Quflion.     Is  not  an  exprefs  command,   cr  ex- 
flicit  example   necejjary^  in  ordtr   to  give   ptr-^ 


3^6  APPENDIX. 

fons^  whether  adults  or  infants^  a  right  to  injli- 
tutions  of  a  fofitivs  nature  ? 

AnJ'Luer,  Sufficient  evidence  of  their  right 
is  necefifary.  But  \i  is  immaterial,  whether 
this  evidence  arife  from  precept,  example^ 
or  fair  implication.  Mankind  are  too  apt 
to  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Jfrael^  by  fpecifying 
ihe  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  that  would 
fuit  and  fatisfy  them.  The  fcribes  and  pha- 
rifees  difregarded  and  defpifed  all  the  evi- 
dence which  our  Saviour  exhibited  in  vin- 
dication of  his  divine  miffion,  while  they  con- 
flantly  demanded  fome  fign  in  proof  of  his> 
Meffiahfliip.  At  the  time  of  his  crucifixion?, 
their  language  was,  if  Jefus  zuill  coyne  doivn 
from  the  crofs^  we  will  helicve  on  him,  but  not 
otherwife.  It  is  a  common  but  jufl  obfer- 
vaiion,  that  fuch  arguments  as  prove  too 
much,  prove  nothing.  Thofe  premifes  or 
principles  mufl:  not  be  admitted,  which  will 
produce  inadmixTible  confequences.  It  is 
"sindoubtediy  the  duty  of  women  to  commune 
at  the  Lord's  table  ;  but  there  is  no  explicit 
command  or  example  for  female  communion. 
It  is  the  duty  of  chriftians  to  obferve,  in  a 
religious  mianner,  the  firft  day  of  the  week, 
but  there  is  no  explicit  warrant  for  changing 
the  Sabbath  from  the  feventh  day  to  the 
firft.  If  the  Apoftles  obferved  the  firft  day 
of  the  week,  this  does  not  prove  that  they 
negle6led  the  feventh.  Some  of  the  baptill; 
denomination  f^ill  think  themfelve.s  bound, 
according  to  their  principles,  to  obfeive  the 


APPENDIX.  317 

fevenih  day,  and  are  caWed  feven-day  haptifls, 
A  quaker  would  fay,  "  there  was  no  explic- 
'^  it  warrant  under  the  gofpel  inftitution  for 
*•  water -baptifm  ;  that  John  baptized  with 
*•  water^  but  Chnjl  baptized  with  the  Holy 
•*  Ghojl ; — that  he  commilTior^ed  his  Apoftles 
"  to  adminifter  bapiifm,  but  did  not  order 
"  them  to  ufc  water  ;  and  that  it  is  no  where 
"  faid  they  did  baptize  with  water.''  At  the 
houfe  of  Cornelias,  Peter  afked,  '•  can  any 
''one  forbid  water  ihdii  thefe  fhould  not  be 
^*  baptized  ?"  But  it  is  not  faid  that  any  w^atcr 
was  brought,  or  ufed,  Philip  and  the  Eu- 
nuch went  dowH'  to,  or  into  the  water,  and 
came  up  from,  or  out  of  the  v;ater,  but  it  is 
not  faid  that  he  baptized  him  in  thp  water  or 
with  the  water  ;  and  thefe  two  arc  the  only 
inftances,  in  which  the  word  water  is  even 
mentioned.  I  know  this  manner  of  reafon- 
ing  is  fophiftical  and  fallacious,  b'ji  it  ap- 
pears to  me  that  the  bapriits,  in  ihjir  zeal 
to  overthrow  the  do8:rine  oF  infant  baptifm, 
have  given  up  fto  ^^  their  good  friends  the 
"  quakers")  the  only  tenable  ground — the 
only  fure  defence  of  water  baptifm  ;.  and  in- 
flead  of  founding  their  principles  upon  the 
baptifm  of  Chrifl,  they  have  attempted  to 
found  them  upon  the  baptilm  of  John,  and 
have  accordingly  called  themfelves  hapiifos. 
a  name  derived  from  John  the  Bapiifi,  who, 
the  quakers  acknowledge,  baptized  with 
water.  John^  as  we  have  obferved,  was  ihe 
laft  and  grcatejl  prophet  under  the  Mofaic 
C  c   2 


35B  APPENDIX. 

aifpenfation;   hut   the  leaji  in   the  kingdom  of 
Chrift  is  greater  than  he.     We  have  endeav- 
013 red  to  fhow  from  (he  fcripturcs,  and  from 
the  \vri(ings  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  that  the 
infant   children   of  chriRian  parents  have   z 
right  to  be  admitted,    by   baptifm,   into  the 
vifible  church,  or  kingdom,  or  covenant   of 
God.      In  the   Abrahamic    covenant,    God 
granted   the  right  of  church  memberfhip  to 
infants,  and  commanded  that  they  fhould  be 
admitted  by  a  viGble   token.     This   church 
xnemberfliip  of  infants  has   never  been  {tl 
afrde,  either  by  the  authority  of  God,  or  of 
infpired  men.     It  therefore  continues  in  full- 
force,  under  the  fanBion  of  heaven,  even  at 
the    prefent   day.     "In   the    old  teftament 
"  tliere  is  an  explicit  precept  for  the  obferv- 
"  ance  of  the  fabbath,  and   alfo  an  explicit 
"  precept  for  the  application  of  the  feal  of  the 
'•  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  fuch  parents 
'•  as  are  vifible  members;  and  as  the  change 
<'  of  the  fabbath,  under  the  prefent  difpenfa- 
''  tion.  from  the  fevenih  to  the  firft  day  of  the 
^'  Vs'eek,  is  not  to  be  confidered  as  a  repeal  of 
"  the  original  precept,    refpePiing    the    fab- 
'•  bath  ;  fo  neither  is  the  change  of  the  feal 
*'•  of  the    covenant,    from    circumcifion    to 
^*  baptifm,  to  be    confidered  as  a  repeal    of 
"  the    original    precept    refpe8ing  the  feal." 
The  church  or  covenant,  and  fubjeBs  there- 
of, are   the    fame  ;   and  alihough    the   feal  is 
varied  as   to   its  form,    being  changed   from 
circumcifion  to  b^piifl"?  it  is  Itili  of  the  fame 


APPENDIX.  319 

import,  and  applicable  to  the  fame  fubjeQs, 
Faith  was  required  in  order  to  the  circum- 
ciiion  of  adults,  but  it  was  not  requifite  in 
order  to  the  circumcifion  of  infants.  Accord- 
ingly, a  profeffion  of  the  chriftian  faith  is  ftill 
required,  in  order  to  the  baptifm  of  adults,  but 
it  is  not  requifite  in  order  to  the  baptifm  of 
infants. — The  Apoftle  fays,  if  any  uould  not 
zoork.  neither Jhould  he  eat.  This  faying  is  ap- 
plicable to  thofe  adults,  who  are  favoured 
with  health  and  ftrength,  becaufe  they  are 
capable  of  working,  but  it  mud  not  be  ap- 
plied to  the  aged  and  infirm,  or  to  infants, 
for  they  are  incapable  of  work.  Thus  the 
Saviour  fays,  he  that  helicveth  and  is  baptized^ 
Jhall  befaved^  but  he  -who  believeih  not,  JJiall  be 
damned;  and  is  condemned  already.  71iis  and 
fimilar  expreflions,  are  applicable  to  thofe 
adults  who  live  in  a  chriftian  land,  becaufe 
they  are  capable  of  believing  the  gofpel. 
But  fuch  pafiages  of  fcrif  ture  muft  not  be 
applied  to  infants,  for  they  are  incapable  of 
exercifing  this  belief. — It  does  not  follow, 
becaufe  faith  is  necefTary  in  order  to  the 
baptifm  and  falvation  of  adult  perfons.  thaf 
infant  children,  who  are  incapable  of  faith; 
muft  not  be  baptized  and  cannot  be  faved. 
The  cafes  are  very  different,  and  their  right 
to  the  token  of  the  covenant  depends  on 
circumftances  which  are  entirely  difUn8. 
The  adult  perfon  is  required  to  believe,  and 
prefent  himfelf.  The  believing  parent  is  re* 
quired  to  prefent  himfelf  and  his  children  to 


320  APPENDIX. 

God,  and  receive  the  external  feal  and 
token  of  the  covenant.  An  exprefs  com- 
mand was  not  rcquifitc  in  order  to  the  con- 
tinuance oFanoldj  approved, and  eftablifhed' 
cuftom.  But  if  any  cafe  can  be  conceived, 
in  which  an  explicit  and  pofitive  precept 
was  indifpenfably  neceflary,  it  was  cer- 
tainly needed,  in  order  to  annul  a  divine  and 
pofitive  institute,  which  had  been  repeated- 
ly renewed,  and  made  the  rule  of  conftant 
praBice,  for  two  thoufand  years.  Faithful 
Abraham  wasexprefsly  conftituted  intfaihtr 
of  all  them  who  believe.  Believers^  of  every 
nation,  are  counted  for  his  fced^  even  as  Ifaac 
was;  and  eonfequently  ihey  and  their  chil- 
dren have  the  fame  right  to  bapiifm.  the 
prefent  feal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
which  Ifaac  and  hi^  children  had  to  circum- 
cifion.  Chrift  did  no^  come  to  revoke,  but  to 
^ow/irw  and  extend  \.\\t  privileges  of  the  original 
charter.  It  was  foretold  concerning  him, 
that  he  fhould  be  '•  a  light  to  lighten  the 
^'  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  his  people  If- 
*•  rael;  to  perform  the  mercy  promifed  unto 
''  the  Fathers  and  to  remcniher  the  holy  cove- 
<;  nantr—"  Behold,"  fays  God,  "  1  will  lift 
''  up  my  hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  fet  up  my 
'•  (land.ird  to  the  people;  and  thcyjliall  bring 
"  rA)!  Jons  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughttrsJiLall 
^^  be  carried  upon  their  piouldtrsy  Thefe  and 
fimilar  predi8ions  have  been  remarkably 
fulfilled.  Thoufands  of  infant  children 
have  been  brought  in  the  arms  of  their  be- 


APPENDIX*  321 

licving  parents  to  Chrift ;  and  nave  been 
dedicated  to  him  in  bapiifm. 

Qurftio?i,  Were  not  thofe  little  children*  con- 
cernivig  -whom  our  Saviour  faid^  "  ofjuch  is  the 
''  kingdom  of  God^'*  like  them  uho  Jung  hofanna 
in  his  temple^  more  properly  adults  than  injants  ? 

Anfwer.  They  were  fo  fmall  as  to  be 
brought  by  their  parents — Ghrift  aBually 
took  them  into  his  arms  ;  and  they  are  exprefs- 
ly  called  infants.  Thofe  little  children,  who 
fang  hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David ^  were  perhaps 
partly  influenced  by  the  example  of  the  mul> 
titude  that  attended  Chrift  as  he  rode  in 
triumph  to  Jerufnlem  :  for  it  feems,  they  were 
fo  young,  that  the  fcribes,  though  much  dif 
pleafedif  did  not  think  themfelves  authorized 
to  reprove  and  filence  them.  They  there- 
fore came  to  Chrift,  in  derifion,  faying,  hear- 
ejl  thou  XV hat  thefe  fay  P  Chrift  replied,  yea  ; 
have  ye  7ievcr  rcad^  out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and 
fuckUngs  thou  hafl  perftBed  praife  ?  He  did 
not  endeavour  to  fhow,  as  fome  do  at  the 
prefent  day,  that  ihofe  children  had  come  to 
years  of  difcretion  ;  but  quoted  and  applied 
a  paffage  of  fcripture  which  exprefsly  men- 
tioned babes  and  fucklings — that  is,  fucking 
babes.  Now,  if  the  praifes  of  Chnft  are 
perfe6led  hy  fucking  babes — if  infant  children 
belong  to  his  kingdom,  they  certainly  have 
a  right  to  baptifm,  the  vifible  fign  and  token 
of  memberftiip. 


322  APPENDIX. 

Qjipjlion,  The  Apoftks  have  told  W5,  they  hap- 
tized  women  as  well  a:^  men — -jc.hy  did  they  not  as 
cxprefsly  mention  the  baptifm  of  children  ? 

An/ever,  We  have  already  fliown,  that 
children  are  as  plainly  mentioned,  as  could 
be  expe^ed.  IF  the  Apoftles  had  faid,  that 
men,  women,  and  children,  were  baptized, 
we  fhould  probably  have  been  told,  as  on 
other  occafions,  that  thefe  children  were  ten 
or  twelve  years  old.  There  was  not,  how- 
ever, the  fame  occafian  or  neceffirv  for  men- 
tioning exprefsly  the  bapiifm  of  children. 
For  as  women  under  former  difpenfations 
had  been  confidered  anti  treated  as  members 
of  the  covenant,  and  entitled  to  all  i:s  privi- 
leges, without  receiving  the  external  token 
OT  iTiemberfhip,  it  was  neceffary  under  the 
gofpel  inftitution,  that  their  baptifm  fliould 
be  explicitly  mentioned,  in  order  to  remove 
all  doubts,  and  fhow  that  perfons  of  both 
fexes  were  now  alike  the  proper  fubjefts  of 
this  ordinance.  But  there  could  be  no 
quellion  refpefting  infants  ;  for  every  one 
knew  that  the^^di/of  the  covenant  had  always 
been  applied  to  them,  and  was  dill  their 
rights  by  an  exprefs  and  unrevoked  inftitu- 
tion. Befides,  it  is  worthy  of  our  particular 
notice,  that  the  words  men  and  women,  are 
often  ufed  in  order  to  diftinguilh  the  fexes, 
without  reference  to  their  age.  We  fome- 
times  call  a  female  infant  or  child,  a  woman  ; 
and  a  male  child,  we  call  a  man.  Our  Sa- 
viour fays,    **  when  a  woman   is  in  travail, 


APPENDIX.  323 

<*  fhe  hath  forrovv,  becaufe  her  hour  is  come, 
*'  but  as  foon  as  (he  is  delivered,  fhe  remem- 
'•  bereth  no  more  her  forrow,  for  joy  that  a 
'•  7nan  is  born  into  the  world."     Here  a  new- 
born infant  is  exprefsly  called   a  man.      In 
another  place  he   obferves,    "  if  a  man^   on 
*•  the    fabbath  day,    received    circumcifion, 
««  that  the  law  of  Mofes  might  not  be  broken," 
Sec.     Here  again  the  word  man  means  an  in- 
fant ei^hi  days  old.      The  law   of  Mofes  did 
not  require,  that  adults  fhould    be   circum- 
cifed  on  the  Sabbath  ;  but  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  infant  circumcifion  was  exprefsly 
refl:ri6ted   to   the   8th   day.      The    8th    day 
would  fometiraes  happen  upon  the  fabbaih  : 
In  which  cafe,  Mofes  ordained  that  the  law 
of  the  fabbath  fhould  yield  to  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcifion.     As   circumcifion.    the   original 
feal  of  the  covenant,  was  affixed  to  the  males 
only,   the   Apoflles   were  v^ry  careful  to  in- 
form us,  that  baptifra,  the  prefent  feal  of  the 
fame  covenant,  is  to  be  affixed  to  perfons  of 
both  fexes.     St.  Paul  tells  us,  in  Gal.  iii,  27, 
28,  29,  that  there  is  no  longer  any  difference 
or  exception.       "  For    as   many   of  you   as 
"  have  been  baptized  into  Chrift,  have  put  on 
"  Chrift.      There  is  neither  male  nor  femak^ 
"  ye  are  all  one  in  Chrift.     And  ijyt  he  Chrijl\ 
"  then  are  ye  Abrahavi  s  feed  and  heirs  accord- 
"  ing  to  the  promife.''     Thus,  in   the  aforefaid 
pafl'age,  inftead  of  ufing  the  words  men  and 
women,  the  Apoftle  has  cautioufly  ufed  the 


^^4.  APPENDIX. 

words  male  and  female,  which  are  equally 
applicable  to  adults  and  infants. 

Qiiefiion.  Did  any  of  thofe  adult  perfons^  uhom 
the  Apofiles  and  ancient  Fathers  baptized^  defccnd 
from  chrijlian  parents  ? 

Anfwer,  Some  children  were  undoubted- 
ly adults,  when  their  parents  believed.  Thefe 
of  courfe  were  not  baptized  in  their  infancy. 
Some,  perhaps,  as  at  the  prefent  day,  who 
did  believe,  negle6led  to  be  baptized.  And 
it  is  poflible,  that  a  few  who  were  baptized, 
refufed  to  prefent  their  infant  children  to 
God  in  baptifm.  But  .we  have  no  account 
that  the  Apoftles  ever  baptized  a  fingle  adultj 
who  was  born  of  chriftian  parents.  We  have, 
in  the  new  leftament,  the  hiilory  of  their 
proceedings,  for  thirty  years  after  the  afcen- 
fion  of  Chrift,  during  which  period,  there  is 
not  one  inftance  of  baptifm,  that  in  the  lead 
degree  favours  the  baptid's  principles.  Thofe 
very  adults,  whom  the  Apoiiles  and  ancient 
fathers  baptized,  were  undoubtedly  converts 
from  among  the  unbelieving  Jews  and  hea- 
thens;  and  confequenily  were  not  entitled 
to  baptifm  in  their  infancy-^-nor  indeed  un- 
til they  had  made  a  profefTion  of  faith.  Con- 
cerning the  baptifm  of  fuch  perfons,  there  is 
no  difpute.  We  are  all  agreed  in  opinion 
and  pra8ice.  But  v/p.at  is  to  be  done  with 
the  infant  children  of  thefe  believing  profe* 
lytes  ?  This  is  the  queflion.  Are  the  infant 
children  of  believers  to  be  baptized?  The 
baptifts  fay  no  ! — That  ihcir  bapiifm  umfl  be 


APPENDIX.  325 

omitted  until  they  become  adults  and  make 
a  perfonal  profeflion   of  their  faith.       But 
where,  my  baptift  friends,  is  your  "  explicit 
*•  warrant  or  pofuive   precept"  for  this  ?     I 
have  never  feen  it.     Your  boafted  argument 
from    fcripture  ''precedents  and  examples" 
will  not  apply  in   the  prefent  cafe  ;  and  this 
is  the  real  point  of  controverfy  between  us. 
On  the  other  fide,  we    have   fhown  that  in- 
fants,   purfuant  to  an  exprefs  precept,   were 
admitted  as  rightful  members,  into  the  Abra- 
hamic   covenant,   and   received  the  external 
token  of  memberihip — that  this  covenant  has 
never   been    dtfannulled  ;     nor  any  alteration 
been  made   refpeCling  the   original    right  of 
infants   to   its   external  feal  and  privileges — 
that    the   infant    children    of   believers   now 
have  the  fame  right  to  baptifm,  which  infants 
formerly  had  to  circumcifion — that  the  Apof- 
iles  and  ancient  fathers  did  accordingly  bap- 
tize  believing  parents  and  their  houfeholds. 
Sl.  Paul  circumcifed  Timothy  when  an  adult, 
but  he  did  noi  baptize  him.     He  was  proba- 
bly baptized  in    his  infancy  or   early  chiid- 
hond,  for  his  mother  was  a  believer.      Thofe 
ijiliances  of  adali  bapiifm,  fo  often  mention- 
ed by  the  oppofers  of  infant  baptifin,  are  to- 
tally inrtpplicable.      Thefe    adults   were    not 
the  offspring  of  b;iliever?,  but   of. infidels — 
perfons    who   had    been  converted  from  Ju- 
daifm  and  heathenifm  to  the  belief  and   pro- 
feflion of  chriftianifv. 


326  APPENDIX, 

Quejlio)!.  Is  it  certain  that  infant  laptijm  teas 
pracli fed  among  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  John 
and  of  Chrif  ? 

Anfzuer,  We  have  already  {hown,  that  this 
was  the  jewifh  praQice,  in  rerpe6l  to  ihofe 
Gentile  profelytes  who  embraced  their  reli- 
gion. This  fa6l5  I  believe,  is  exprefsly  Ra- 
ted by  all  learned  hiflorians  and  commenta- 
tors, who  have  written  upon  the  religious 
rites  and  cuftoms  of  that  people.  Dr.  Wall 
and  Dr.  Prideaux  have  been  quoted  as  au- 
thorities. The  fame  pra6lice  is  exprefsly 
mentioned,  when  treating  of  profelytes,  by 
Selden,  Ainfivorth^  Lighfoot.  Havimcnd^  Poole^ 
Siackhoufe^  Cruden^  and  by  the  authors  of  the 
Diftionary  of  the  Bible,  &:c.  Mr.  Echard^ 
in  his  ecclcfiaftical  hiftory,  fays,  "  the  ufuai 
'•  way  in  which  the  Jews  made  profelytes, 
'"•  was  by  circumcifion,  bapiifm  and  facrifice, 
"  '\{  they  were  males;  and  by  baptifm  and 
"  facrifice,  if  they  were  females,  as  Maimo- 
'•  nides  and  the  chief  of  the  Rabbins  affure 
'•  us.  Baptifm  was  an  ancient  cuftom  among 
'•  the  Jews.  It  was  in  ufe  many  ages  before 
'•  our  Saviour's  incarnation.  As  circumci- 
'*  fion  was  applied  to  the  children  of  the 
'•  Jews,  fo  was  baptifm  alfo  to  the  children 
'•  and  infants  of  the  profelytes."  Some  of 
the  aforefaid  authors  are  more  particular  than 
others.  They  mention  not  only  males,  but 
females  and  infants,  as  well  as  adults.  Seve- 
ral of  ihefe  writers  obferve,  that  children, 
under   twelve   years   of  age,   were  baptized 


APPENDIX.  327 

orj  account  (jf  their  parents  ;  and  that  this 
pra8ice  of  infant  baj^iifm  has  been  in  ufe 
among  the  jews  from  the  days  of  Mofes 
even  to  the  prefeni  lime.  The  Jews  con- 
fidered  themfelves  as  nationally  baptized 
into  the  religion  of  Mofes,  hy  the  cloud  and  hy 
the  fed  ;  and  as  there  was  to  be  bat  one  law  for 
the  firangcr  and  for  thofe  of  their  azim  naiion^ 
they  ininated  profelvtes,  a.dalts  and  infant::, 
by  baptifm,  &c.  Being  thus  admitted  into 
the  Jewifh  charch,  they  had  a  right  to  all 
the  religious  privileges  of  nanve  citizens. 

Qjiejlion.      Was  the   baptfn  which    John  the 
Baptij}  adminiflsred^  the  chrijlian  haptfm  ? 

Anfwer.  The  new  teftament^  or  gofpel  dif- 
penfation^  did  not  take  place,  until  the  death 
of  the  t^fitor.  John  was  not  an  Abofle  of 
Chrift,  but  his  forerunner— -hh  rueffenger. — 
Bei-^g  the  lafl^  and  greaiefl  prophet  under 
the  Mofaic  law,  he  came  to  prepare  the  ivay 
of  the  Lord^  and  riiike  his  pa-hs  flraight.  He 
told  his  hearers  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  zcas 
at  hand^  but  it  had  not  commenced.  The 
sniniftration  and  baptifm  of  John  were  pre- 
paratory to  the  minidra'ion  and  bapiifm  of 
the  Apoftles.  Accordingly,  it  appears  from 
A8:s  xix.  2,  3,  4,  5,  that  thofe  perfons  to 
whom  he  adminiftered  baptifm,  were  after- 
wards baptized  into  the  iiarac  of  the  Father^ 
Son,  aid  Holy  Ghofl*  This  was  the  chriftian 
baptifm,  as  inftituted  by  Ghrif>  himfelf. 

Que/iion,     Did  John  baptize  infants  ? 


328  APPENDIX. 

Anjwtr,  The  infpired  writers  are  entire- 
ly filent  refpefting  this  matter.  We  muft 
therefore  reafon  from  other  circumftances  > 
for  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  riitre  fiknce^ 
that  he  did,  or  did  not  baptize  them.  It  is 
no  where  faid  or  intimated  that  John  bap- 
tized any  females^  and  yet  he  probably  did 
baptize  zuomen  as  well  as  men,  and  infants  as 
well  as  adahs.  For  the  jews  were  in  the 
pra61ice  of  baptizing  their  Gentile  profelyies, 
whether  male  or  female,  adult  or  infant;  and 
they  expeQed,  when  the  Mefliah  or  his  mef- 
fenger  fhould  come,  that  the  people  of  iheir 
own  nation,  of  both  fexes  and  of  all  ages, 
would  be  again  baptized,  as  had  been  the 
cafe  at  the  Red  Sea.  Befides,  we  ought  to 
remember,  that  it  was  exnrefsly  foretold 
concerning  the  forerunner  of  Chrift — '^  That 
"  he  fiiould  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  th^ 
'•  children^  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their 
'^  fathers^  left  I  come  and  fmite  the  earth  iinth  a 
'•  curfe'' — Mai.  iv.  6.  When  we  cbnfider 
the  habits  and  circumftances  of  the  Jews, 
nothing  can  be  more  natural,  than  to  ruppofe 
they  brought  their  children  with  ihem  to  the 
baptifm  of  Jchn.  There  is,  to  fay  the  leaf^, 
as  much  evidence  that  he  baptized  infants, 
as  that  he  baptized  women. 

Qiteflion,  Did  the  difciples  of  Chrif.  before 
our  Saviour  s  crucifixion^  baptize  infants  ? 

,.  Anfwer,  They  certainly  did  baptize  a  vaft 
number  of  perfons.  But  die  thing  is  very 
{lightly    mentioned — in    the    mod     general 


APPENDIX.  329 

terms,  and  by  bul  one  of  the  Evangeiifts. — 
Not  a  fingle  man,  woman,  or  child,  is  named 
or  fpecified.  We  may  iberefor^  fairly  con- 
clude, that  they  baptized  perfons  of  both 
fexes  and  of  all  ages,  according  to  she  ex- 
pe6lation  and  cuitom  of  the  Jews  on  other 
occafions;  efpecially  when  we  confide r  that 
ihefe  itinerant  difciples  of  Ghrift  were  very 
numerous, — Befides  the  twelve  Apoflles,  he 
fent  forth' feveniy  at  a  lirn?,  dire^ling  theai 
to  go  from  city  to  city,  and  from  houfb  tci 
houfe — in  order  \o  jetk  and  favc  the  hjl  jhcep 
of  the  houfe  of  Ifrad — fuch  as  couid  noi  con- 
veniently attend  on  the  minifl  rauori  and 
baptifm  of  John,  at  a  great  diR. ^nce  fro;o 
home,  in  the  wjlderiiers,  and  •  in  ihe  open 
field.  It  appear:*  highly  probable  from  ihefe 
circumflances,  that  the  difciples  of  Chnit 
bapiiz-d  a  greater  propor-ion  of  women,  and 
particularly  of  children,  \h^.n  Juhn;  efpecij!- 
iy  when  we  coniider  that  ihey  were  exprefNly 
ordered,  upon  e-.tering  a  houie,  if  the  Son  of 
Peace  fnould  be  there^  to  blef^  the  hou1e. 
Now,  if  the  houfehold — the  ciiildren,  had  a 
right  to  the  bleiring  of  Chriil  or  of  his  gra- 
cious covenant,  on  account  of  iliC  believing 
parent,  they  certainly  had  a  right  to  baptifm, 
the  feal  and  confirmaiion  ot  the  promiicd  or 
covenanted  blefTing. 

Qjirjlion.  Did  the  Apcfihs  ofer  the  rtfarrec- 
tton  rf  Chr'fl,  and  after  the  chrijtian  baphfm  zvas 
inftititttd^  baptize  the  infant  children  f  btUeving 
tarenls  ? 

D  d  2 


330  APPENDIX. 

Anfwer,  Infants  were  not  excepted  in  the 
commifiTion  which  Chrifl  gave  to  his  Apof- 
tles,  nor  is  it  any  where  faid  or  even  inti- 
mated, that  they  \fere  not  baptized.  The 
terms  ufed  in  the  apollolick  commiflion  are 
of  the  mod  general  and  comprehenfive  na- 
ture.  Infants  conftitute  a  confiderable  part 
of  every  nation.  Thev  are  capable  of  being 
taught  by  Chrili,  arid  of  being  enrolled  as 
difciples  or  fcholars  in  his  fchool,  for  the 
purpofe  of  fecuring  to  them  a  religious  and 
virtuous  education.  On  the  day  ofPente- 
coft,  we  are  told,  they  who  gladly  received  the 
uvrd  were  baptized.- — It  is  further  obfcrved — 
and  the  fame  day.  there  uere  added  untj)  ihon 
about  three  thoufand fouls.  The  word  foiilsi  is  a 
general  term,  and  as  applicable  to  infanis  as 
lo  adults.  Some  perfons  who  believed  and 
were  baptized,  had  no  children;  but  others 
who  were  blefled  with  children,  undoubted- 
ly prefented  ihem  to  the  Lord  in  baptifm. 
Accordinojy,  when  Lydia  believed,  /he  and 
her  hoi  ft  hold  \K^  re  bapiized. —  V^-hen  Scepha- 
nus  believed,  he  and  his  hoi f  hold  were  bap- 
tized.— When  the  jailer  believed,  he  a?id  all 
his  were  baptized^  flraighticay.  I  know  it  is 
pretended  by  fome,  that  ihefe  children  were 
probably  old  enough  to  believe,  and  to  be 
bapiized  on  the  account  of  their  own  f^iih. 
But  this  is  mere  conje8ure.  We  are  in- 
formed thvi  parenis  believed,  but  it  is  not 
faid  their  children  believed,  and  we  have  r.o 
right  to  be  wfc  above  zvJiat  is  wriUen, 


APPENDIX.  331 

Qiiejlion,  But  has  not  Saint  Paul  tcldiis  that 
the  houfehold  of  Stephamis^  tuhc7n  he  baptized^ 
"  have  addiHed  ihanf elves  to  the  viinijlry  of  the 
^^Sainth?''  And  do  a  not  this  imply  they  were 
cjults  andbtlievers  ? 

Anfrjoer,  It  is  faidjin  ihefirfl  Epiftle  ?oihe 
Corinthians,  xvi.  15,  that  they  have  additled 
them/elves  to  the  viinijlry  of  the  Saints;  but 
then  this  Epiflle  was  wrJLten  in  the  56ih  year 
of  Chrift,  which  was  undoubtedly  20  years  or 
more,  after  Saint  Paul  had  baptized  the 
houfehold  of  Stephanos;  for  we  are  exprefs- 
ly  told  that  this  houfe  was  the  firjl  fruits  (f 
Achaia — the  very  firft,  who  had  been  bap- 
tized in  that  province  or  country,  of  which 
Corinth  was  the  capita!.  The  objefiion, 
therefore,  inftead  of  invalidating,  confirms 
the  argument  in  favour  of  infant  bapiifm. 
For  on  fuppufirion  they  received  bapiifm  in 
their  infancy  or  early  childhood,  the  interval 
between  the  time  in  which  the  ApoRle  bap- 
tized thefe  children,  a^nd  ihe  iimein  which  he 
wrote  the  aforefaid  Epiille.  was  fsifiicienily 
long'  for  than  to  mature  in-age  and.dfcretion^ 
and  become  addiEied  to  the  minifi>y  of  the 
Saints, 

Ouefiion.  Did  not  the  houfthold  of  the  Jailtr 
believe  before  th^y  u ere  baptized  ?  Is  it  not  ex- 
pre/sly  /aid  that  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God, 
with  all  his  houje  ? 

Anfdjer.  The  feeming  ambiguity  of  ihe 
aforefaid  words  would  have  been  in  a  great 
meafure   prevented,   if   our    iranHators   had 


332  APPENDIX-. 

placed  them  according  to  the  original  order. 

The  Greek  is  —  Kai  egalliajatc  panaiki  pep:fu\>- 
k6s  id  Thcb.  And  he  rejoiced  with  (or  in)  aU 
his  houfe,  believing  in  God.  Mr.  Henry,  xvl 
his  annotaiion  on  this  paffage,  fays,  it  mig};t 
have  been  rendered  thus  :  "  Having  believ- 
*^  ed  in  God,  he  rejoiced  his  houfe  all  over 
*'  — in  every  apartment."  The  original  word 
ufed,  is  not  JunpanoikU  bat  panoikU  an  ad- 
verb, and  by  Dr.  Hemmenway  and  various 
critical  writers,  is  rendered  domcjiwaliy.  He 
rejoiced  domeftically,  or  ail  his  houfe  over 
— he  'went  from  room  to  room,  rejoicing  in 
evefv  apartmenr.  It  is  highly  probable,  tr.at 
his  fam-lv  participated  with  him  in  this  nev^ 
and  unufual  joy.  This  circum.fiance.  how* 
ever,  is  not  exprefTed  in  the  Greek.  Both 
words  are  ufed  in  the  fingylar  nwriiber.  The 
jailer  hdicvcd — the  jailer  rejoiced.  But  it  is 
faid,  the  Apoiiles  preached  the  word  to  him, 
to  all  fhat  were  in  his  houfe  !  The  prifon- 
ers  and  domeiiicks  \vere,  undoubtedly,  all 
prefent.  When  the  jailer  er  quired  uhat  he 
pioidd  do  to  he  faved^  Paul  and  Silas  replied, 
bdicve  on  the  Lord  Jtjus  Chrift,- and  thou  JJiali  b& 
favtd^,  arid  thy  hoiifs.  Thefe  words  agree  ex- 
aclly  with  what  our  Saviour  faid  to  Zncche- 
us.  This  day  i^  falvation  come  to  this  houfe^fcr- 
as  much  as  ht  aljo  is  the  [on  cj  AbrahcVfi.  The 
promife  made  to  Abraham  WnS,  /  will  be  a  God 
to  thee  and  thy  feed.  Peter  therefore  laid  to 
hi^  hearers,  rcpnit  and  he  baptized-^  for  the 
i}ronvfe  is   to  yc:i  and  your  children.      The  jai- 


APPENDIX.  333 

]et  was  a  Gentile  ;  but  upon  bis  believing 
the  gofpel  be  and  his  children  became  enti- 
tled to  thsii  fahai ion  zvhich  zvas  of  the  Jews — 
to  that  family  or  houfehold  bieffing  nhich 
was  promifed  io  faithful  Abraham  and  his  feed. 
Accordingly,  he  and  all  his  were  baptized 
flraightway. 

Qiifiion.  Is  it  certain,  that  infant  baptifin 
was  praHfed  in  ike  age  zchich  iinmediately  foL 
lowed  the  Apoflles  ? 

Anfojer,  We  have  already  fnown  from 
hiftory,  that  infant  baptifm  was  certainly 
praftifed  in  the  fecond  and  in  the  third  cen- 
turies. In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, Conftaniine  declared  in  favour  of 
chriRianity.  Perfecution  ceafed.  More 
books  were  accordingly  written,  than  in  any 
preceding  age.  All  doubts  and  difj^utes  a- 
bout  infant  baptifm  are  now  entirely  remo- 
ved. The  teftimonies  of  writers  are  very 
numerous,  full  and  undeniable  ;  and  Dr. 
V/all  tells  us,  "  that  not  one  of  them  fpeaks 
'^  of  it  as  new  ;  or  as  a  thing  which  needed 
''  proof;  but  as  a  practice  fuppofed  and  ordi- 
"  narily  known.  It  was  never  enatlsd  by 
**  the  authority  or  enjoined  by  the  canoris 
««  of  any  council ;  becaufe  no  church  or  fe6l 
<*  of  chriRians  had  ever  denied  ir.  On  the 
'•  contrary,  they  occafionaily  mention  infant 
^'  baptifm  as  a  cuflomary  rite,  that  had  always 
^'  been  praBifed." 

Oii^ftion.  If  it  fiould  he  admitted-^  that  infant 
hdpififi  was  thus  pradifed  in  the  fcond^    ihird 


334  APPENDIX. 

4ind  fourth  centuries,  xuill  it  folloiv  that  the  prac- 
tice had  been  hapJ.^d  doiun  to  them  even  Jrom  the 
times  of  the  Apojlles  ? 

AnJ'xtr.  The  proofamounts  to  the  clear- 
eft  demonriration.  The  primitive  churches 
throughout  the  world  were  undoubtedly 
farmed  by  the  Apoflles  upon  one  and  the 
fame  plan.  The  apoftoh'ck  age  continued 
until  about  the  twa  of  the  firfl  century.  Thoie 
cbriilians,  who  lived  in  the  fecond,  third, 
and  even  fourth  century,  mull  have  known 
perfectly,  infallibly,  and  univerfally,  how  the 
Apofties  praftifed.  They  couid  not  poflibly 
be  ignorani  ormiftaken  refpe6ting  a  praQice 
of  fuch  general  concern  and  notoriety.  It 
is  now  almoft  two  hvindrcd  years  fince  our 
forefathers  landed  in  Plymouth.  Every  per- 
fon  of  information  among  us  knowfjjbat  the 
iirft  fetilers  of  this  country  generally  believ-. 
ed  in  (he  do8rine  of  infant  baptifm.  as  being 
a  divine  inftiiution.  The  commencement  of 
the  fourth  century  v;as  but  about  two  hun- 
dred years  after  the  Apoftles.  Thofe  ancient 
chriftians  certainly  knew  how  the  xApoftles 
praclifed,  in  this  refpetl ;  and  undoubtedly 
adhered  clofely  to  the  example  which  they 
had  fet  them. 

Q^uejlion,  If  infant  haptifm  were  praclifedhy 
tlu  Apnflks^  during  the  ffirjl  century^  and  by  the 
ancient  chriftians  in  thefaond  and  third  centuries^ 
zvhy  have  they  not  mentioned  it  more  frequently 
and  rxpUcitly  in  their  z:^ri rings  P 


APPENDIX.  335 

An/wer.     The  reafons  are   very   obvious. 
A  pra8ice  which  has   obtained  and  become 
univerfal,   which   meets  with  no  oppofition, 
and  about  which  there  is  no  difpute,   needs 
no  arguments  or  advocates   for  its  defence. 
There  is  no  occafion  why  it  (hould  be  even 
mentioned  by  any  writer,  unlefs  for  the  fake 
of    illuftrating    or    eftablifhing    fome    other 
point  that  may  be  difputed.      Thus  it  w^as 
with  reiped  to  infant  circumcifion.      This 
ancient  rite  was  conftantly  ufed  from  the  in- 
fancy of  Ifaac  tiii  the  time  of  Mofes,  a  term 
of  more  than  four  hundred  years,  and  yet  it 
is  not  once   hinted  during  that  long  period. 
After  Mofes,  there  is  not  one  exaniple  men- 
tioned of  infant  circumcifion  in  all  tlie   old 
teftament,  although  it  was  daily  pra^tifed  for 
the   fpace    of  fifteen   hundred    years.      ^Ve 
ought  alfo  to  confider,  thai  in   ancient  times 
the  art  of  printing  wa;s  not  underftood.     But 
few  books  were  written;     and    thofe  few  in 
the    moft    conc;fe   manner.       Some  of  thefe 
books  have  been  loft,  and  fome  deflro)  ed  by 
the  enemies  of  chriftianixy.     But  ftill,  as  has 
been   obferved,  infant  baptifm  is  mentioned 
by  a  number  of  the  moft  refpeQabie  fathers, 
who  lived  in  the  fecond  and  third  centuries. 
It  is  mentioned  as  a  univerfal,  incontciiable 
practice,  authorized   by  the    Apoftles  them- 
felv'es.     In  every  inftance.  it  is  mentioned,  cc- 
cajionallj^^  and  as  an  indifputahh  fa8,  in  order  to 
confute   fome   herefy,   or   prove    fom.e  doc- 
trine that  was  then  difputed.     The  hiftorical 


33^  AP?ENfT3IX. 

evidence,  in  proof  of  infant  baptifm,  appears 
to  be  conclufi  ve,  and  of  fuch  a  nature  as  might 
have  been  reafonably  expelled.  In  the  fourth 
century,  it  is  fo  full  and  forcible,  the  bap- 
tifts  themfelves  allow,  that  the  infant  children 
ofprofefied  believers  were  then  generally 
baptized. 

Qiieflion.  Did  none  of  the  ancic^it  fathers  op- 
pofe  infant  haptifm  ? 

Arfzver,  Tcrtullian,  of  ihe  third  century, 
a  man  of  odd  and  lingular  notions,  is  the  on- 
ly perfon  who  objeBed  or  advifed  to  delay 
the  baptizing  of  infants.  His  teftimony, 
however,  affords  an  unanfwerable  argument 
in  favour  of  the  antiquity  and  authenticity 
of  this  decline.  For  he  acknowledged  that 
the  praftice  did  prevail.  He  did  not  pre- 
tend that  it  was  unlawful,  a  nullity,  or  an  in- 
novation. It  is  not  at  all  ftrange,  that  a 
chrifHan  ordinance  fhou'd  be  oppofed  by 
one  or  two  perfons,  in  the  courfe  of  feveral 
hundred  years  ;  but  very  remarkable,  that 
the  number  of  oppoftrs  fhould  be  fo  fmall 
and  inconfjdcrable.  There  was  no  church, 
nor  any  feci:  of  chriftians,  who  held  to  water- 
baptifm,  and  denied  infant  baptifm,  before 
the  twelfth  certury. 

Ic  is  impoiTible  to  account  for  the  early, 
the  general,  and  confTantpraciice  of  infant 
baptifm,  upon  bapiifts'  principles.  We  are 
obliged  to  believe,  thai  the  Apoftles  did  bap- 
tize infants.  Every  argument  from  the  a- 
forefaid    ftatement    of   facls.   from    analogy, 


At»PENlSlX.  3J7 

and  from  experience,  favours  this  opinfon. 
"The  baptifls  tell  us,  that  all  the  primitive 
and  aRcient  churches  were  of  their  denom- 
ination.    Such  general,  indefinite  affertions 
are  more  eafily  made  than  proved.      Why 
^o  they  not  mention  fome  particular  minijle^ 
or  church  ;  and  let  us  know  in  what  nation  or 
country  they  exifted  ?     This  has  never  been 
done  nor  attempted.    New  cuftoms  and  prac- 
tices are  commonly  introduced  by  flow  de- 
grees,  and   not    without    much    difficulty. 
The  founder  or  leader  of  any  new  fe6l  or 
party    becomes  notorious.      The  age   and 
place  in  which  he  lived   are  known.     His 
peculiar  fentiments  are  warmly  difputed  and 
oppofed,  being  contrary  to  the  eftablifhed 
"habits  and  prejudices  of  the  people.     But 
no  p  erf  on  can  be  named  who  brought  in  the 
fuppofed  herefy  of  infant  baplifm.     No  time 
Br  country  can  be  fixed  upon,  in  which  it  had 
its  origin.     How  then  is  it  conceivable  that 
fo  great  a  change  with  refpcft  to  an  article  of 
fundamental  importance,  which  deftroyed  the 
"very  being  of  the  church,   could  commence, 
and  prevail,  and  become   uaiverfal,  without 
the  aid  of  any  authority,  civil  or  ecclefiaflic- 
al,  and  wichout  oppofiiion. 

Qiieflzon,  Have  not  many  great  corruptions^ 
fuch  as  ima^e  worfhip^  tranfuhftantiation^  &c, 
imiverfaUy  prevailed  among  chriftians  9 

Anftver.     Thefe   and    fimilar    corruptions 
never  did    become   general.     Befidcs,   they 
were  conftantly  oppofed  by  numerous  indi- 
Ee 


338  AVrZKVlX. 

viduals  and  fynods,  while  the  arm  of  civil 
and  military  power  was  ftrenuoufly  exerted 
to  eftablifh  and  fupport  them.  Hiftory  in- 
forms us  concerning  the  rife  and  progrefs 
of  error  or  herefy  in  general — the  ways  and 
means  by  which  it  has  been  introduced  and 
fupported — that  innovations  have  always 
met  with  oppofition — that  nuniberlefs  books 
have  been  written  in  order  to  confute  and  fup- 
prefs  them.  But  not  one  of  the  ancient 
Fathers — no  chriftian  author  for  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  has  favoured  the  world  with  a 
fingle  pamphlet  againft  the  do£lrine  of  infai>t 
bapiifm. 

If  the  praftice  of  baptizing  infants  had  been 
contrary  to  the  example  and  injundion  of 
the  Apoftles,  oppofers  would  have  rifen  up 
againft  it,  in  every  part  of  Chriftendom. 
But  we  read  of  no  fuch  oppofition.  The 
practice  univerfally  prevailed,  not  only  a- 
mong  the  orthodox  chriftians,  but  alfo  among 
feftaries  of  every  defcripiionjeven  of  the  mofl 
dil'cordant  and  unfriendly  fentiments,  while 
cngagedin  angry  contentions,  It  prevailed  in 
the  earlieft  and  pureliages  of  chriftianity,  be- 
fore popery  exifted,  and  in  thofe  countries 
where  its  influence  never  extended;  through- 
out  all  the  churches  in  Afia  and  Africa,  as  well 
as  in  Europe.  So  that  not  a  fingle  baptift 
church  has  been  or  can  be  found  fgr  more 
than  eleven  hundred  years  after  Chrift,  and 
but  one  fmall  fociety  of  that  denomination, 
previoufly  to  the  fixteenth  century. 


APPENDIX,  359 

From  thefe  fa£ls5  fully  and  ftrongly  5ttefl.- 
e<i,  it  appears  that  the  praBice  of  baptizing 
infants  was  primitive  and  apoftolick ;  and 
that  the  firft  chriftian  churches,  in  all  places, 
were  formed  and  eftablifhed  upon  this 
fcheme. 

Quejlidn,  But  after  all  that  has  been  faid^ 
•what  good  does  infant  haptifm  do  ? 

Anfwer.  With  equal  propriety  it  might 
be  afked,  what  good  did  infant  circumcifion 
do  ?  What  good  does  it  do  to  pray  for  our 
children?  1-  have  ever  viewed  thefe  and 
(imilar  queftions,  as  impertinent  and  ex- 
tremely improper.  For  we  are  ignorant  and 
flrort  fighted  creatures.  When  God  com- 
mands, it  is  always  our  duty  to  obey,  even 
if  we  cannot  fee  any  connexion  between  the 
means  appointed  and  the  end  propofed.  To 
difobey,  on  this  account,  would  be  the  height 
of  impiety  and  prefumpiion.  The  divine 
conftitulion  is  fuch,  that  the  obedience  of 
parents  always  proves  beneficial,  not  only  tb 
themfelves,  but  to  their  children  ;  but  dif- 
obedience  is  injurious  to  both.  For  the  Lord 
cur  God  is  a  jealous  Gnd^  vifiting  the  iniquities  of 
the  fathers  upon  their  children^  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  him^  and 
fhezving  mercy  unto  thoufands  of  them  who  love 
him^  and  keep  his  commandments. 

I  do  not,  howxver,  mean  to  intimate,  that 

\v€  can   perceive   no  good  tendency  in    the 

'  doBrine   of  infant   bapiifm.      The  doBrine 

itfelf  is  calcu^lated    to   teach  us  feveral  very 


340  APPENDIX, 

impartant  truths,  and  in  the  plaineft  manner* 
It  teaches  us  that  God  and  Chrifl  have  ex- 
ercifed  and  exprefled  the  moft  afFeftionate 
regard  and  tender  care  for  little  children, 
in  their  redemption,  and  in  making  the  mod 
wife  and  merciful  provifion  for  their  religious 
education. — It  teaches  us  that  they  are  in  a 
falvable  (late,  apd  ihat  their  fandification, 
and  juftification,  and  falvation,  are  to  be 
fought  for,  and  expe8ed  through  the  merits 
and  mediation  of  the  Saviour.  The  \velfare 
of  children,  both  for  time  and  eternity,  very 
much  depends  upon  their  being  rcligioufly 
educated.  Thofe  parents,  who  dedicate  their 
iiifant  children  to  God  in  baptifm,  hereby 
engage  folemnly  to  educate  them  in  the 
ways  of  religion  and  virtue.  By  thefe  en- 
gagement^, their  natural  obligations  are 
ftrengthened,  and  they  are  reminded  of  their 
duty.  Thefe  engagements,  which  are  made 
publickly,  in  the  prefence  of  many  witneffes, 
the  members  of  the  church  are  alfo  bound,  to  " 
fee  fulfilled.  "  For  they  have  covenanted 
^'  with  God  and  with  each  other, 4o  exercife 
^'  mutual  watchfulnefs  and  to  reciprocate 
''  every  faithful  and  brotherly  office  ;  and  in 
«•  particular,  to  watch  over  each  other,  in 
«'  refpeft  to  the  duty  which  they  feverally 
<«  owe  their  children  ;  and  in  an  afFe61ionate, 
«  chriftian  manner,  offer  fuch  advice,  admo- 
"  niiion,  and  reproof,  as  occafions  may  re« 
«•  quire,  and  wifdom  dilate;  and  on  the* 
*«  grounds   of  God's    gracicllis  promifesj   to 


APPENDIX.  341 

«  pray  without  ceafing,  that  the  fpirit  of  the 
««  Lord  may  be  poured  out  upon  them  and 
<'  his  bleffing  on  their  offspring."  In  this 
way,  it  is  incumbent  on  the  church  to  watch 
over  thefe  baptized  children,  and  difcipline 
them  through  the  medium  of  their  parents,- 
who  are  refponfible  for  their  conduct.  Thus 
infant  baptifm  appears  calculated  to  produce 
many  and  great  advantages  to  children  ;  and 
efpecially  by  fecuring  to  ihero,  in  the  moft 
efFeftual  manner,  a  religious  education. 
Hence, 

If  children  are  the  proper  fubjeBs  of  bap- 
tifm, it  is  certainly  the  indifpenfable  duty  of 
parents  to  prefent  them  to  God  in  this  ordi- 
nance, and  train  them  up  for  him.  And  ve 
children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord,  for  this 
is  right — this  is  the  firji  comTnandment  with 
promife.  Be  careful  to  know  the  God  of  your 
fathers^  and  ferve  him^  xvith  d  perfeB  heart  and 
willing  mind ;  for  the  Lord  fearcheth  all  hearts^ 
and  undiTjiandeth  all  the  imaginations  of  the 
thoughts.  If  you  fee  k  him^  he  will  be  found  of 
you  J  but  if  you  for  fake  him^  he  will  cofl  you  off. 
forever. 

The  preceding  obfervations  leach  us  the 
nnwarrantablenefs  of  re-baptizing.  We  have 
fhown  that  infants  are  the  proper  fubjecls  of 
baptifm,  and  that  aftafion  or  fprink-ling  is  a 
proper  and  valid  mode  of  adminiRering  the 
ordinance;  to  re  baptize -then  mud  be  con- 
trary to  the  will  of  God — a  vain  repetiiiony 
that  cannot  be  juftiBed,  The  practice  leads 
E  c  2 


g[42  APPENDIX. 

dire6lly  to  the  baptift  doftrine  of  clofe  com* 
munion,  and  to  the  mod  unhappy  divilions 
and  reparations.  For  the  bapiifts,  confider- 
ing  themfelves  as  the  only  true  church, 
are  very  apt  to  think  it  their  duty  to  divide 
and  deftroy  other  churches  and  chriftian 
focieties.  In  confequence  of  this  fentiment, 
we  frequently  fee  parifhes,  and  neighbour- 
hoods, and  families  divided — hufbands  and 
wives,  parents  and  children,  brothers  and 
fifters  feparated. 

Our  common  Lord  is  undoubtedly  willing 
to  admit  to  his  table  chriftians  of  all  denom- 
inations. But  the  baptiits  will  not  admit  any 
to  their  table  of  communion,  but  thofe  o-f 
their  own  perfuafion.  They  will  allow  none 
of  their  community  to  commuHe  with  the 
snembers  of  other  churches  ;  not  even  with 
their  own  parents  or  hufbands,  if  of  another 
denowiinaLion.  The  efFe€l^  are  fometimes 
extremely  difagreeable  and  diftreffing,  efpe- 
tially  when  near  and  dear  relations  and  con- 
nettions  are  induced  to  leave  the  fellowfhip 
and  communion  of  thofe  wiih  whom,  like  ho- 
ly David  and  his  friend,  they  have  taken  fwcet 
counfcl  together,  and  have  gone  in  company  to  the 
houfe  0/ God,  ^nd  table  of  Chrift.  Bui©  the 
baptiits  tell  us,  they  cannot  commune,  nor 
allow  of  communion,  with  unhaptized  perfons ; 
and  that  we  ourfelves  would  objeQ  and  rc- 
fufe.  There  is,  however,  a  very  great  diffe- 
rence between  a'perfon  who  has  received 
baptifm  by  affufion  of  fprinkling,  according 


APPEKDIX.  343 

to  the  dr6tates  of  his.  own.  confcience,  and 
one  that  has  never  been  baptized,  in  any 
mode  whatfoever.  The  quakers  arc  the  on- 
ly fed  who  deny  water-baptifm  ;  they  alfo 
deny  the  facrament  of  the  Lord's  fupper, 
and  of  courfe,  never  wifh  for  communion 
in  that  ordinance. 

Again,  the  baptrfts  tell  us,  they  do  not 
pretend  to  what  is  commonly  called  injallu 
biliiy,  but  make  the  infallible  word  of  God  the 
rule  of  their  condu6l.  This  does  not  remove 
the  difficulty.  It  is  a  mere  evafion.  They 
will  not  allow  the  word  of  God  to  be  a  rule 
for  others;  but  fet  up  their  own  interpreta- 
tion as  the  only  ftandard  for  all.  The  qua- 
kers will  fay,  that  the  word  of  God  is  an  zVz- 
Jallible  rule,  but  then,  the  Spirit^  or  Light  nith- 
in  them^  is  the  only  true  interpreter.  The 
papifts  will  acknowledge  that  the  word 
of  God  is  the  infallible  rule,  that  is,  for 
them,  but  not  for  others ;  for  they  alone  can 
interpret  it  rightly  ;  that  St.  Peter  has  com- 
mitted to  them  i^e  key  of  knowledge  and  of  the 
church  ;  and,  confequently,  that  they  can  open 
and  no  man  piut^  and  Pixd^  and  no  man  open. 
Thus  they  exalt  them/elves  above  all  that  is  cal- 
led God  and  is  worjhipped.  They  exalt  their 
own  interpretation  of  God's  word,  above  the 
word  of  God  itfelf,  which  word,  we  are  told, 
God  has  magnified  above  all  his  name. 

The  only  way  to  avoid  theie  difficulties 
and  abfurdities,  is,  for  profefled  chnftians  of 
all   denominations,   to    confider    the   facred 


344  Ai»PENmx. 

fcriplures  (and  not  their  own  conftruBion) 
as  the  eftablifhed  rule  of  faiih  and  pra8ice, 
while  they  mutually  agree  to  embrace  each 
other  as  brethren — as  difciples  of  Chriftj 
their  common  Lord  and  Mafter,  and  as  memi 
bers  of  hi^  vifible  church  or  kingdomo 

FINIS. 

A.  D.   i8c6. 


C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S .    ' 

Pagi 
INTRODUCTION  3~. 

Preparatory  remarks  9., 

The  commiffion  of- the  Apol^les,  and  ancient 

Jewifh  cuftom  of  baptizing  profelytes  12 

Abrahamic  covenant  If. 

Elfe  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are 

they  holy  36. 

The  ark  including  Noah  and  his  family  typical 

of  the  covenant  47 

Infants  baptized  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  fea  5.0 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  diftindl  from  the  Mo- 

faic  difpenfatjon,  ^nd  not  annulled  with  it  52, 

Infant  children  of  believers  not  represented  as 

born  after  the  flefli  70 

The  olive  reprefents  t^e  covenant  74 

Abufcs  of  a  chriftian  ordinance  no  obje(5Ion 

to  the  ordinance  itfelf  8©; 

Infants  the.fuitable  fubjeds  ofbaptifm  :  alfo  its 

tnd;  and  defign  explained  86- 


1^ 

^4^  CONTE^NTS. 

Critical  remarks  on  the  meaning  of  the  words 

baptifm  and  baptize  102 

Jewifli  purification  called  baptlfms  128 
Ifraelites  fprinkled  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  fea      157 

Our  Saviour's  baptifmal  fuijerings  164.. 

Baptifm  by  tlie  Holy  Ghofl  172; 

Buried  with  Chrift  by  baptifm  =  179 

John  baptized  at  Jordan  194. 

John  baptized  -vvlth  water  203 

Chrift  no  baptift,  nor  dipped :  205  ; 

Baptifms  at  the  feaft  of  Pentecoft,  3C00-  215- 

Paul  baptized  21 9 

The  jailer  and  his  family  baptized .  224 

The  Eunuch  baptized  225 

Lydia  baptized  229 
No  evidence  that  any  one  was  dipped,  nor  is 

this  mode  of  baptizing  effential  231 

Hiftory  concerning  the  mode  of  baptizing  257 

Hlftory  refpe(5ling  the  fubjecls  of  baptifrn.  256 

J^ppendix  301 


ERRATA. 

Page  31,  fourth  line  from  the  bottom,   and  page  9^,   fccond 
line  from  the  top,  inllead  oi  father  s  xt^^  father i\ 

Page  184,  firft  line,  after  the  word  rich,  add  the  words— 
in  bis  death. 

Page  207,   in  the  fixth  llae  from  the  bottom,  in  the  wor*! 
liaptftes  add  the  letter  i  between  the  t  and  s. 

Page  as4,  eleventh  line  fro»i  the  top,  inft>ead  of  th^  rea4  ka 


